Question to article based on cigg and marijuana

[speel]

This article[url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml"]http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cann...s_health2.shtml[/url]basicly states that weed is simply healthyer than ciggs. Which I agree on. But what my question is, in the article they state this"obacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by lawwith phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils havea natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two longlived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. Theseradioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to thefine hairs on tobacco leaves.  Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 depositsaccumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke. Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have threetimes as much of these elements in their lower lungs as nonsmokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 andpolonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have beenconducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 isthe only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors byitself in inhalation experiments with animals. "Now I'm just curious if there's any such radiation and deposits in hookah tobacco.

[Johnny_D]

I would guess that all tobacco goes through some degree of washing or some basic mechanical preperation.We know cigarettes are messed with huge style and shisha tobacco is far more 'au natural'.However I would loosly suggest that if anything was on the tobacco leaf then it could be present in the shisha.But shisha is not burnt like cigarettes, so that must be taken into account.JD

[dikydave]

[quote name='speel']This articleNow I'm just curious if there's any such radiation and deposits in hookah tobacco.[/quote] there sure is. welcome to cancer land. "Cancer is produced if radiation does not kill the cell but creates an error in the DNA blueprint that contributes to eventual loss of control of cell division, and the cell begins dividing uncontrollably." [url="http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_9_5.html"]Source[/url]

[[LB]]

this is very intersesting. Dont forget that shisha tobacco is washed, which washes the majority of tar and nicotine in the shisha. I think that with cigarrettes they dont remove anything, so there could be rubber bands or spittle or dead rabbits and stuff. EDIT: according to the article, it isnt the only tar that causes the cancer. Its a combination of the radioctivity of tobacco and the tar that retards the healing process of cancer affect sores in the lung. EDIT: i dont know how reliabe this whole article is though to be honest. I wouldnt trust this guy, neither woudl i trust cigarrette companies. I wanna hear what tangiers thinks because he might be the only one to understand the science behing all this.

[Macho555]

I;m nto sure why they wouldn't be really. The only thing I can think of is that shisha is generally "steamed" and not torched like a cig tobacco. Maybe the chemicals have to be actually burned since they are one the physical leaf. But yeah, Tangiers is definatly the guy to ask, with all his fancy learnens

[The Pope]

a good question to ask would be where the radioactive stuff is on the plant. Is it purely collected on the outside of the leaf or does it enter and concentrate inside of the plant? Is it water soluable, or is it suspended in oils or fibers within the cell? With cigs, there is more inhalation of actual burned plant particulate matter, opposed to particles like vaporized glycerin in shisha.

[Calcartman]

Why the argument?HOOKAH WILL KILL YOU.if you're trying not to die, quit hookah now. Smoking = Death.Doesn't matter what you smoke, or how.

[[LB]]

[quote name='Calcartman']Why the argument?HOOKAH WILL KILL YOU.if you're trying not to die, quit hookah now.  Smoking = Death.Doesn't matter what you smoke, or how.[/quote] We all know that, but the question is which one kills you faster

[Joseph]

One time I held a Geiger counter up to a pack of cigarettes, it went nuts.

[Sonthert]

That article is hogwash. Disregard it. I have heard the polonium thing before. I am inclined to believe it, with an asterisk. Cigarette companies don't grow tobacco, farmers do. The cigarette manufacturers and guys like me go to companies who buy the tobacco and either sell it straight or blended. Radium-226 is radioactive. It is increibly expensive, moreso than gold. Anybody who proposes that somebody is intentionally spreading Ra 226 around tobacco crops is insane. I know nothing of fertilizer regulations, my uncles might. IF the tobacco industry is so unregulated as to not having to put their ingredients on a pack of cigarettes, why would the government make a regulation regarding tobacco, specifically, having to have a particular phosphate put on it? More logically, although still somewhat disbelievable, phosphates are mandated for all crops. Why do phosphates have Ra-226 in?? Doesn't make sense either. This is why I am inclined to question the whole Polonium-210, Radium-226 thing. Ra-226 and Po-210 are natural radioisotopes. They are extremely rare in nature, as are all radioisotopes. They are so scarce that I think you would have trouble, even if you had super-electron vision, finding one atom...it is quite rare...since their half-lives are short. We find large deposits of uranium because uranium's half life is on the order of billions of years! For instance Tc-99 is radioactive, it is a long-lived radioisotope like Po-210 or Ra-226, but the element was unknown until we created it in a lab, so they must be rare in nature...you won't find its dust clinging in great quantities to tobacco leaves. I've heard various versions of this same story which means it is far more likely that this is a product of stoner story time...much like aluminum foil causes Alzheimer's, brain tumors, brain damage, or anything else. When you hear the same story, but the the details are different, it is 99.99% of the time wrong.Here's an article:[url="http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/cancer/06/21/marijuana.lung.cancer/index.html"]CNN Marijuana worse than cigarettes[/url]There are many radioactive things we eat and drink on a regular basis. Apparently nuts, specifically, brazil nuts are highly radioactive...so its not unheard of.Regular tobacco is not washed in its processing. That does ring true, its possible if there were Ra-226 and Po-210 hanging around, that they could get swept directly onto the cigarette manufacturing line. Its academic, however, because the plant being exposed to alpha radiation would likely have become irridated itself, because radioactive energy frequently will irridate things around it, like the flu, sort of. So, by the time it got to the guys washing our sheesha tobacco, it wouldn't make a difference anymore. Besides, they don't "Spray, wash, rinse, spin dry", they mist somewhat, either way it doesn't make much of a difference.The article doesn't show any statistics, it bashes tobacco, and then concludes, since tobacco is sooo bad, marijuana must be safer. This is not sound reasoning. Despite all that is said, the truth there is a huge gulf of studies in how dangerous or safe marijuana is. We don't know. Everyone is always focusing on what the tobacco companies add to the plant, how they treat the plant. It is far, far, far more likely that the tobacco plant itself is the culprit. It is deadly and poisonous no matter what the tobacco companies do to their products...which makes alot of the discussion of the article fly out the window.Let me ask you all this question, we don't believe the somebody if they were to say "Cigarettes aren't bad for you.", right? Why would we believe somebody who says marijuana isn't bad for you? Neither statement makes a good deal of sense. I'll summarize my OPINIONS:1. That article is bullshit. Ignore it. It makes little sense scientifically or practically.2. Smoking cigarettes is bad for you, smoking hookah is bad for you...there are no ways to cheat and find a safe alternative. You are killing yourself by smoking. 3. Smoking marijuana is bad for you. It is also illegal. It shouldn't be, but it is. Anybody who says that smoking marijuana is safer than cigarettes/tobacco can't back that up. They are full of it. Nobody knows. It is entirely possible and likely that on a population-wide basis, MJ and T are equally hazardous. It is possible that one or the other is nomially more hazardous...thats like saying jumping off of 100' cliff is slightly more hazardous than jumping off a 90' cliff...who cares? You still go "Smush" at the bottom. One thing to think about...the cigarette companies did their damnedest to convince people about how safe cigarettes are...there was no proof. Now we know, tobacco products are DEADLY. Why would they say those things? They have a financial interest in making sure people keep using tobacco products. In a like sense...the people that are talking about MJ being safer than T, they are likely to have a financial interest in MJ...which makes them just as impeachable as the tobacco companies. They may not sell the stuff, but if they are part of advocacy groups or whatnot, their livliehood is based on people continuing to light up...would they lie the same way as the tobacco companies did? Sure....so don't believe them...enjoy, there are consequences to be had, be sure. Don't think if you wear a red scarf you can avert cancer...you smoke, whether MJ or T, and you die. Edit: My general guess is, that if Speel's article has merit, we still need some mechanism for transference into the lungs/body. Cigarette smoking is far, far different than smoking a hookah. I don't see one, in the same way the conspiratorial aluminum thing doesn't hold up...how does it get from there inside us?Additionally, those estimations of radioactive load in smokers are absurd... Marijuana has little hairs, too...why doesn't Marijuana pick up radioactive stuff from the soil, in the same manner? Why doesn't corn? Or wheat?  Edit #2: Polnium-210 has a half life of 138.376 days (Source:Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, Choppin and Rydberg), not 20 some years. Since it takes approximately 2.5 years from seed to you smoking it, that would correspond to 6.6 half-lives, so that the net radioactivity would be a little more than 1% of its original amount. There is radiation, to some degree all around us...the idea that its normal for there to be none is not true. We are bombarded by refugees of the big bang, billions of years ago, they make up the staticky snow on a TV with no reception.They've done alot of picking on tobacco, but MJ still remains unresearched, largely. If tobacco does contain large amounts of radiation, OK. The only reason we don't know that MJ is the same is nobody looked at it...MJ could be twice as bad as T...the CNN article seems to say that it has four times the tar. Nobody knows, I think is the point. Believe nothing.

[Sonthert]

I reread the article. The guy isn't a complete crackpot, but I still believe the article to be biased. No marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as tobacco, yes its as hazardous to your health, in the same way an earthquake of 7.1 and an earthquake of 7.4 are the same strength, relatively speaking, far stronger than a 3 or a four, yet close to each other, if you see what I mean. His "pointing and circling" logic don't make his arguments have more merit. He makes some good points, but much of his information is still non-direct...disproving the negative research out there or saying nobody has "Not one case of lung cancer has been successfully linked to MJ use." Thats some great statistics there. I don't think the doctor comes in and says "You've got cancer...and its definitely from smoking cigarettes." They are not saying that people who smoke marijuana do, indeed, get lung cancer and other cancers. No, we can't link them to MJ anymore than we can literally link cancers to cigarettes. That is a very borderline intentionally deceptive statement, ie trying to draw the reader away from the data that exists. I say the same thing that I said when I read the Surgeon General's most recent study showing second hand smoke is a carcinogen...where are your statistics? If what you say is true, I'm sure you can crunch a spreadsheet and make a chart showing a significant, dramatic difference between A and B, which demostrates your point. You can't? Probably because the statistics aren't there because nobody's sure OR the statistics disprove your case, but you are an asshole that insists on convincing people of things that aren't true because they are in your personal interests. No data...no evidence.

[DarthHookah]

damn it, tang, you're too much genius for just one man. maybe you are a siamese twin, like in those tales from the crypt shows.

[moosepotatoes]

amen....dude what did u major in?you got some skizzels

[dikydave]

ill be damned, i sat here and read all of that, vnice tangy

[Anpu]

[quote name='moosepotatoes']amen....dude what did u major in?you got some skizzels[/quote] He's an engineer... don't remember what type though... chemichal I guess lol

[[LB]]

marijuana should be legalized then state regulated and researched. Then and only then will there be a clear answer, not to mention every marijuana plant these days is different because its so disorganized. I know this cause every time I see weed, it always smells different or feels stronger or weaker. To be honest i bet marijuana is worse for your health becuase of the brain damage it causes, but tobacco is somethign that is smoked on a regular, sometimes daily basis, and smoked in much greater quantities than marijuana.EDIT: thanks tang for taking the time to write up all that stuff, its very informative

[djbomberto]

lol, i 100percent agree with tang, even breathing is bad, so i guess we have to stop breathing.

[web250]

Very good argument Tangiers.

[Calcartman]

[quote name='Tangiers']It is possible that one or the other is nomially more hazardous...thats like saying jumping off of 100' cliff is slightly more hazardous than jumping off a 90' cliff...who cares? You still go "Smush" at the bottom.  [/quote] ^^^The bottom line.

[Macho555]

Lmao, we said Tang had an answer and so he did XD

[speel]

Thanks Tang

[DarthHookah]

so, does tang just sit back and watch page after page of praise just flood his screen? is he sitting on a throne of silver and skulls, just laughing maniacally at all this?

[dikydave]

everytime he laughs... an angel dies...

[Anpu]

[quote name='DarthHookah']so, does tang just sit back and watch page after page of praise just flood his screen? is he sitting on a throne of silver and skulls, just laughing maniacally at all this?[/quote] Well, from where I'm sittin, he just seems like a well-read and well educated individual that enjoys sharing his knowledge with others as well as a good debate, should one arise. .... shit. I think I just inflated his ego that much more...

[Buford]

Supposedly MJ is less prone to cause cancer than cigarettes, but for a not-so-good reason. Apparently it kills old lung cells before they can grow cancerous, so it might not cause cancer as much but is still killing cells.