Marlboro Red Regular Cigarettes with 20 Cartons ($24 per carton)--Marlboro Red Cigarettes,Wholesale Cigarettes
contain less radioactive material than other brands Many cigarettes contain radioactive polonium from the use of phosphate/apatite fertilizers. The National Institutes of Health lists tobacco as by far the largest source of radiation for the American public. A common argument for organic cigarettes is that they don't contain as much radioactive material, and are therefore much safer: Surprisingly, radiation seems to be the most dangerous and important factor behind tobacco lung damage. . The unnecessary radiation delivered from soil-damaging, synthetic chemical fertilizers can easily be reduced through the use of alternative phosphate sources including organic fertilizers. . Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. - Radioactive tobacco The best thing about organic cigs is the fact that they aren't allowed to use radioactive fertilizer. This means that you won't get a large dose of radiation like regular cigs. . Actually smoking organic cigarettes is MUCH better than smoking commercial american grown cigarettes. American tobacco growers use phosphate fertilizers that are tainted with radioactive Polonium and Lead. The metals get stuck in bifurcations in our lungs which results in large amounts of ionizing radiation. This radiation causes about 97% of all lung cancers. Organically grown tobacco makes no use of contaminated fertilizer and hence you are ALOT LESS LIKELY to get cancer from smoking. . Get all the chemicals out and the radioactive fertilizers and you have the same stuff or close to what the american indians were smoking and they had NO cancer. - Blog comments Radiation comes from commercial tobacco because it is grown with radioactive fertilizers that leave Polonium 210 and Lead 210 concentrated in the tobacco. This is the major cause of cancer. Organic tobacco lacks these radioactive carcinogens, (yes it contains dozens of other carcinogens so it is not safe) but those dozens of other carcinogens only cause 10% of tobacco's cancerous effects. They are a little more expensive and delicate than those that detect primarily beta and gamma radiation, but they are readily available. Other plants absorb it too, meaning it's in the food we eat, possibly as much as 20 cigarettes' worth in a day's intake; at any given time our bodies contain about 23,000 cigarettes' worth of polonium, largely in the liver, kidneys, spleen, and bone marrow. According to data from Argonne National Laboratories, the chances of polonium causing fatal cancer in a two-pack-a-day smoker after 25 years may be less than one in 1,000; by contrast, World Health Organization figures suggest that cigarettes kill about half of all smokers, with half of those deaths coming in middle age. It also says that the quote from Everett Koop (Surgeon General, alleged in the ACSA net article to have said "tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer") can't be tracked down (quoted on the web thousands of times, but no indication of when and on what programme he allegedly said it). I have been intensely researching this subject, and I have found several of the same claims from several different places. The fact is that Polonium 210 (210Po) is a very radioactive agent. The tobacco plant readily absorbs the 210Po because it mistakes it for a nutrient that it needs. Phosphate fertilizers, which are used by all of the major commercial cigarette manufactures because they are cheaper to use, contain 210Po. 210Po causes up to 97% of cancer-related smoking deaths. Organic cigarettes cannot use phosphate fertilizers, only natural fertilizers. Therefore they do not contain 210Po, and hence - they are a lot better for you, if you must smoke. Welcome to Skeptics!. Thank you so much for providing references. This is a huge step above the typical first-poster. However, you make some bold claims which I can see supported by your references. If you could point out where you found this (ideally with a quote to protect against link-rot) that would help. For example, the claim that Polonium is the cause of 97% of cancer-related smoking deaths is extraordinary, but can see any support for it in your references.