The big idea: polonium, radon and cigarettes

Tidd, Michael J

doi:10.1258/jrsm.2007.070021

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Arguably, a significant part of this mortality is a result of In essentially bringing the subject to closure, Tidd (2008) stated that "The highly carcinogenic alphaparticles (radiation) from radon have a major synergistic effect with the chemical carcinogens in cigarette smoke, increasing the lifetime risk of lung cancer by a factor of 8.3 to 25 compared with never-smokers. "…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In hindsight, this might have been expected since, on average, the top five feet of soil within each square mile of the United States contains about 30 tons of uranium (99.25% of which is 238 U) (Evans 1969). Another contributor is calcium phosphate fertilizer that is routinely applied to many tobacco fields and contains relatively large amounts of uranium (Tidd 2008). Over past eons, the decay of 238 U (whose half-life is 4.5 ϫ 10 9 y) has produced a series of decay products, including 226 Ra, which decays into radon, a gas.…”

Section: Sources and Deposition Of 210 Po And 210 Pb In The Lungmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also of note is that the continuing use of calcium-phosphate fertilizers, cited earlier, represents another potential conservatism in these dose estimates. Tidd (2008), for example, observed "Modern cigarettes may contain higher levels of 210 Po than those measured 40 years ago. "…”

Section: Dose Rate Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chemical and Radioactive Carcinogens in Cigarettes: Associated Health Impacts and Responses of the Tobacco Industry, U.S. Congress, and Federal Regulatory Agencies

Moeller¹,

Sun²

2010

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

²¹⁰Po and ²¹⁰Pb were discovered in tobacco in 1964. This was followed by detailed assessments of the nature of their deposition, and accompanying dose rates to the lungs of cigarette smokers. Subsequent studies revealed: (1) the sources and pathways through which they gain access to tobacco; (2) the mechanisms through which they preferentially deposit in key segments of the bronchial epithelium; and (3) the fact that the accompanying alpha radiation plays a synergistic role in combination with the chemical carcinogens, to increase the fatal cancer risk coefficient in cigarette smokers by a factor of 8 to 25. Nonetheless, it was not until 2009 that Congress mandated that the Food and Drug Administration require that the cigarette industry reveal the presence of these carcinogens. In the meantime, cigarette smoking has become not only the number one source of cancer deaths in the United States, but also a major contributor to heart disease and other health impacts. If the latter effects are included, smoking is estimated to have caused an average of 443,000 deaths and 5.1 million years of potential life lost among the U.S. population each year from 2000 through 2004. The estimated associated collective dose is more than 36 times that to the workers at all the U.S. nuclear power plants, U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons facilities, and crews of all the vessels in the U.S. Nuclear Navy. This unnecessary source of lung cancer deaths demands the utmost attention of the radiation protection and public health professions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sources and Deposition Of 210 Po And 210 Pb In The Lungmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chemical and Radioactive Carcinogens in Cigarettes: Associated Health Impacts and Responses of the Tobacco Industry, U.S. Congress, and Federal Regulatory Agencies

Moeller¹,

Sun²

2010

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other researchers did report life lengthening of mice in analogous experiments [76]. In any case, the hormesis concept should be applied with caution as hormetic stimuli may act without threshold upon pre-damaged or atrophic tissues, or act synergistically with other known or unknown noxious agents including carcinogens [77][78][79]. In this connection, the petition to remove the phrase "As low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) from the radiation safety regulations [80] is hardly justified, as exposures are unpredictable during a human life, while effects of exposures may accumulate.…”

Section: On the Dose-response Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Effectiveness of Ionizing Radiation: Acute vs. Protracted Exposures

2016

J Environ Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This letter refers to the current discussion around re-evaluation of the dose and dose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) equal to 2, presently recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The topics of the threshold, hormesis and DDREF are interrelated with the linear no-threshold theory (LNT). The LNT does not take into account that DNA damage and repair are permanent processes in dynamic equilibrium. Given the evolutionary prerequisite of best fitness, it would be reasonable to assume that living organisms have been adapted by the natural selection to the background levels of ionizing radiation. Accordingly, there must be an optimal exposure level, as it is for many environmental factors. Several studies cited in the literature in support of the LNT and lowering of the DDREF down to 1 are discussed here. In the author's opinion, the dose-effect relationships with non-neoplastic diseases found in certain exposed populations call in question dose-effect relationships with cancer. Self-selection and other biases in epidemiological studies are discussed. The dose-response relationships should be clarified in largescale experiments involving different animal species. In conclusion, the LNT and under-estimation of DDREF tend to exaggerate radiationrelated health risks at low radiation doses and dose rates. Arguments against Linear No-Threshold Theory (LNT)Radiation-related cancer risk estimates have been primarily based on the data from atomic bomb survivors. To adjust the risk estimates at acute exposures to low dose and continuous (low dose rate) exposures, a dose and dose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) is used [1]. This letter refers to the discussion around re-evaluation of the DDREF value equal to 2, currently recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [2]. The topics of the threshold, hormesis and DDREF are interrelated with the linear no-threshold theory (LNT). Hormesis and LNT are considered controversial by many scientists; discussion is in [3][4][5][6][7][8]. The LNT is corroborated by the following arguments: the more tracks go through a cell nucleus, the more DNA damage would result and the higher the risk of malignant transformation would be. "Decreasing the number of damaged cells by a factor of 10 would be expected to decrease the biological response by the same factor of 10" [9]. This concept does not take into account that DNA damage and repair are permanent processes in dynamic equilibrium. Given the evolutionary prerequisite of best fitness, it would be reasonable to assume that living organisms have been adapted by the natural selection to background levels of ionizing radiation [10]. Accordingly, there must be an optimal exposure level, as it is for many environmental factors: visible and ultraviolet light, different chemical elements and compounds [11], as well as the products from radiolysis of water [12]. Evolutionary adaptation to a changing environmental factor would lag behind its current value and correspond to some ...

show abstract

“…Man nimmt an, dass Radon der Hauptauslçser fürLungenkrebs bei Nichtrauchern in den USA ist und außerdem einer der wichtigsten Gründe,d ass Rauchen selbst zu Krebs führt. [5] Das Gas trägt nur zu 0.6 10 À17 %z ur Erdatmosphäre bei, jedoch akkumuliert es sich wegen seiner hohen Dichte von 9.73 gL À1 [6] und seiner Entstehung aus dem Boden in Bereichen unter der Erdoberfläche wie beispielweise Kellern und Minen. Es werden große Anstrengungen unternommen, um die Radonkonzentration in Städten, Häusern und an Arbeitsplätzen zu kontrollieren.…”

unclassified

Ein hundert Jahre altes Experiment auf dem Prüfstand: hochgenaue Ab‐Initio‐Monte‐Carlo‐Schmelzsimulationen von Radon

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moderne,relativistische Coupled-Cluster-Methoden wurden verwendet, um Mehrkçrperpotentiale des Edelgaselements Radon zu konstruieren und mit Parallel-Tempering-Monte-Carlo-Simulationen seine Festkçrpereigenschaften, darunter den Phasenübergang von fest zu flüssig, zu studieren. Als Schmelztemperaturen wurden in Simulationen des ganzen Festkçrpers und durchE xtrapolation von finiten Clustern 200(3) Kb zw.2 00(6) Kb estimmt. Dies ist in hervorragender Übereinstimmung mit dem oft angezweifelten (aber weitläufig zitierten) und einzigen experimentellen Wert von 202 K, der auf Messungen von Gray und Ramsay aus dem Jahre 1909 zurückgeht.Obwohl der erste Auftritt des Edelgaselements Radon in der wissenschaftlichen Literatur mehr als 110 Jahre zurückliegt, ist nur wenig über seine physikalischen und chemischen Eigenschaften bekannt. Einer der Hauptgründe hierfüri st, dass Radon keine stabilen Isotope besitzt. So ist beispielsweise das langlebigste Isotop 222 Rn ein a-Strahler mit einer Halbwertszeit von nur 3.82 Tagen, begleitet von 510-keV-g-Strahlung von 218 Po. [1] Sogar seine Entdeckungsgeschichte scheint in der Literatur unklar:Die meisten Quellen zitieren Ernest Rutherford und Ernst Dorn (manchmal sogar zusammen mit den Curies) als die Ersten, die die Natur der Zerfallsprodukte von Thorium und Radium verstanden und als ein radioaktives Gas namens "radium emanation" (Em) bezeichneten. [2] Bei aufmerksamer Durchsicht der Originalartikel wird jedoch klar, dass Rutherford als Entdecker von Radon gelten sollte (Dorn zitiert sogar Rutherfords vorhergehende Ergebnisse in seiner Arbeit). [3] Aufgrund seiner starken Radioaktivitätgilt Radon in der Umwelt als Gesundheitsrisiko. [4] So ist nicht nur seine natürliche Strahlung als ein a-und schließlich g-Strahler gefährlich,

show abstract

The big idea: polonium, radon and cigarettes

Cited by 15 publications

References 6 publications

Chemical and Radioactive Carcinogens in Cigarettes: Associated Health Impacts and Responses of the Tobacco Industry, U.S. Congress, and Federal Regulatory Agencies

Chemical and Radioactive Carcinogens in Cigarettes: Associated Health Impacts and Responses of the Tobacco Industry, U.S. Congress, and Federal Regulatory Agencies

Biological Effectiveness of Ionizing Radiation: Acute vs. Protracted Exposures

Ein hundert Jahre altes Experiment auf dem Prüfstand: hochgenaue Ab‐Initio‐Monte‐Carlo‐Schmelzsimulationen von Radon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About