Chems v.s organics

"Radioactive buds?"..http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2673.html

New study shows that many fertilizers are radioactive, producing potentially harmful pot.

A recent study shows that many commonly used fertilizers are high in radioactive elements. The study was performed by Dr Paul Hornby, who holds a master's degree in biochemistry and a PhD in human pathology from the University of British Columbia.

The study analyzed 25 different types of fertilizers, seven "organic" varieties and 18 "chemical" fertilizers. The results showed that the chemical fertilizers emitted on average five times the radiation of the organic group.

There are different ways of measuring radioactivity. The chart below shows the "counts per minute" (CPM) of radiation detected in each sample. The average for the organic fertilizers was 140, while the chemical fertilizers had an average radiation count of 675, an almost five-fold increase.

The lowest radiation was found in the organic blood meal fertilizers, which emitted only background radiation ? the normal low radiation found in most objects. On the other end of the spectrum was the 5-20-20 berry food, with a radiation level about 24 times higher than background.


These levels of radiation don't pose a danger through simply being around bags of fertilizer. However, cannabis and other plants are known to uptake radioactive elements from their growing medium (CC#18, Hemp helps Chernobyl). Radiation exposure is accumulative, so that repeated inhalation would present an increasing health risk.

 

I would tend to believe it more if the report had a few other accredited scientists behind it. I was doing some research for other things and theres a few companies and people that use Dr Hornbys "expert" advice. So I researched what else Dr Hornby was behind and came to the conclusion that hes a not much more than a schill for Advanced Nutrients, as well as his own line of nutrients. Outside of the Vancouver BC marijuana business he isnt known for anything.


I also would consider the source as I have picked apart many other CC articles due to the small fact that they seem to be void of any facts. 90% of them are stoner hearsay and the other 10% is Associated Press regurge of marijuana news. After reading 30 years of AP regurge I know how much of that can actually be called news from propaganda.


I think you'll find that any high phosphorous ferts will have very minute amounts of trace radiation and its probably no worse than being out in the sun for a few minutes of exposure. The thing that makes me want to pick it apart is the last para, where they say being around the ferts doesnt pose any risk and then they make the big leap saying they know that MJ is some sort of sponge for radiation from the medium when I have never heard that before and the notion of referencing chernobyl? get serious, do you expect me to believe that you can conduct a reasonable test in the chernobyl environment that will mimick trace radiation in ferts? I doubt it, you cant compare a football stadium full of apples to a polaroid of an orange.


It is a classic example of a CC article where they use loose science facts to scare growers into some sort of unecessary fear of growing. Thank god they also sell the solution and or have links to where growers can get "non-radioactive" ferts.

 

That is very interesting.


I went for a google and found a page on it.





http://cannabisculture.com/articles/1445.html


Randy

 

....yea, I think "Gr. Hornaby" is most known for furniture polish.. hee..hee



QUOTE

I would tend to believe it more if the report had a few other accredited scientists behind it

..
http://www.prfamerica.org/RadioactivityInCigaretteSmoke.html..here, they seem to surmise that the radioactive particles are becoming attatched to the tobacco trichomes(mj trich's...tobacco trich's)and being ingested with the smoke.


http://www.cannabismd.org/reports/kubby.php..."Some scientific studies suggest that the radioactivity of tobacco, not its tars, may be the primary cause of lung cancer. Where does the radioactivity come from? It comes from the inorganic fertilizers used to grow tobacco. In fact, evidence suggests that cancer from smoking tobacco was unknown prior to the use of inorganic fertilizers.


An ordinary Geiger counter will confirm that most commercial fertilizers are mildly radioactive. Heavy fertilizing concentrates radioactive isotopes of lead and polonium in plant tissue. Smoking concentrates the lead and polonium to dangerous levels and then deposits the radioactive isotopes on the lungs, resulting in long term exposure to carcinogenic ionizing radiation.


Based upon this and other evidence, it would appear prudent for medical cannabis consumers to insist upon organically grown medicine, in order to avoid any harmful exposure to heavy metal isotopes."


http://www.acsa.net/a_smokers_holocaust.htm...  "Smoker's Lung Cancer has at it's root cause, the nearly exclusive use of Calcium Phosphate-based Fertilizer by Tobacco Growers since 1943.  Not only does the FDA know this, the Big Tobacco Companies have known about it since the late 60's according to their own internal memorandums.  Tobacco Fertilizer in use today has radioactive, poisonous Polonium 210 in it, an isotope which even if smoked in tiny quantities, accumulates damage and mutation to the Lung tissues at a steady rate over 10-30 years, leaving the immune system compromised and giving rise to Tumors.  Most commercial tobacco contains trace amounts of this extremely deadly long term carcinogen, giving smokers almost 3 Chest X-Rays worth of Alpha Radiation, the dangerous kind. directly applied to every pack-a-day smoker's lungs.  


   A simple change to Organic or Ammonium Phosphate-based fertilizer, cleaning up the Growers lots to remove residual Polonium/Bismuth isotope bearing soils, would reduce the deaths from Lung Cancer by as much as 150,000 American lives saved per year"


http://www.acsa.net/HealthAlert/lungcancer.html


"Lives could be saved by simply changing fertilizers, they say...  Almost 95% of the Lung Cancer caused by Cigarettes are allegedly the result of using calcium phosphate fertilizer to grow the Tobacco. The resulting Cigarettes bearing a combination of local Radon gasses and radioactive Polonium from the Tobacco leaves deposit a small dose of radioactive isotopes directly into a smoker's lungs as they smoke"


From "The New England Journal of Medicine"..http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.rad.html..."During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette smoke. Only one definite chemical carcinogen -- benzopyrene -- has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research into the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.


The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly concentrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer, which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves concentrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed."


 It stands to reason "IMHO", that the same results could be expected from ingesting mj smoke grown in "hi-phoshate" chemical fertilizers, as tobacco grown in them. Especially since none of the "schills" here refer to it being absorbed through the plants circulatory system, but from minute particles becoming attatched to the exterior.  


http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3161.html..heres a .."rebuttal", to the CC article. By a "schill" from General Hydroponics.



QUOTE

It is a classic example of a CC article where they use loose science facts to scare growers into some sort of unecessary fear of growing.

....I'm not sure I understand "why" CC, a site supposedly dedicated to cultivation of mj, would want to "scare growers into NOT growing"..
Are you saying Cannabis Culture has ulterior motives?..


(Edited by Hicountry2 at 4:04 am on Feb. 28, 2005)

 

solid hic.


hicountry posted:


"Lives could be saved by simply changing fertilizers, they say... Almost 95% of the Lung Cancer caused by Cigarettes are allegedly the result of using calcium phosphate fertilizer to grow the Tobacco. The resulting Cigarettes bearing a combination of local Radon gasses and radioactive Polonium from the Tobacco leaves deposit a small dose of radioactive isotopes directly into a smoker's lungs as they smoke"


Interesting, i wonder if much care has been taken into the tobacco fields since the slaves got free'd.


fuckin nasty, the idea of the big tobacco industry letting their crops grow with cheap government subsidiezed chemical fertilizer. but i'm glad that you helped me realize why i really need to quit smoking cigs.


Another factor about chemical ferts, are the government subsidies that allow them to be produced. When developed, the chem fert's were originally used for warfare during wwII. After that was over, the government began paying to see their chemicals produced for other uses.


Their funding has created modern agriculture as we know it. a total disregard for the quality of our soils has ensued.

 

Good points, but leaves too many unanswered questions.


~ High phosphate ferts are used in a variety of herbs, fruits, and veggies. Alot of them have trichs too, why does it seem that tobacco is the only cancer breeding ground?


~ If the dangers are serious enough then why havent there been many more cannabis related cancer deaths. For whatever matter why havent there been any MJ related cancer deaths? Safe to assume based on those articles that we all have been using the wrong/bad/radioactive ferts for the last 20 years and asides from my mutated genital biting bud everythings peachy.


If we're going to apply any kind of logic and reasoning to the science then its impossible to dismiss the obvious, people are dropping dead left and right from smoking cigs and the same cant be said for smoking pot. If smoking pot could substantially harm you the govt would have gone out of their way to let us know by now with substantial proof instead of lame **** like cracking an egg into a hot frypan.


So what other motive besides selling outrageously priced ferts with the claims their "radioactive" safe to an eco-friendly audience do you need? The king of CCs actions alone set back the Canadian legalization movement at least ten years. For not much more than notoriety and profit.

 

<<


cause people dont smoke fruits and veggies. alot of smokers suck down a pack to two everyday, no matter what else is going on.


i smoke some chronic pot and take only a couple tokes throughout the day to get me 'leveled' not 20 fatass joints. I'd be killin my lungs anyother way.


makin sense?

 

Sort of but I cant really say that clears it up for me, if smoke and quantity alone were causitive factors then it stands to reason that there would be attributable cancer deaths to chronic marijuana and hashish users somewhere in the world.


It also doesnt explain away chewing tobacco users and their mouth and throat cancer rates compared to non-chewers. This factor alone dismisses the smoke vs eating issue. You dont need to smoke it to get cancer from it.


I can also say I easily smoke the same weight in weed that can be found in tobacco from one pack of cigs everyday, all without the assistance of any tar filters and have done so for many years without any signs or clinical tests to show I have cancer and I know personally of a couple dozen people that do the same, they know many more than I so I feel safe assuming there thousands of us out there that smoke more than a couple tokes and have done so for years without succumbing to this mystery radioactive fert cancer.


If the process of "smoking" a fruit or vegetable were at all risky then we should warn people of the dangers of cooking food or the dangers of cooking food that was ferted with high phosphor radioactive ferts.


So is it possible? Sure, anythings possible.


Is is possible without any substantial proof to back their claims of its potential harm? No, the story relies on your imagination to make the jump from high phosphor ferted tobacco radiation to smoking radioactive heavy metal weed.


Gimme some facts and I'll bite but this kind of bullshit scare journalism where the root of the article is to get people to buy some "safe" ferts is just crap. The analogy of it is, dont crash test a honda and then hand me a safety report for a mercedes and tell me its the same.

 

I don't think the New England Journal of Medicine, has any interests in selling me any fertilizer.


Even the Surgeon General, in 1990 stated on television,"radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer."


"The detrimental effects of tobacco smoke have been considerably underestimated, making it less likely that chemical carcinogens alone are responsible for the observed incidence of tobacco-related carcinoma. Alpha emitters in cigarette smoke result in appreciable radiation exposure to the bronchial epithelium of smokers and probably secondhand smokers. Alpha radiation is a possible etio- logic factor in tobacco-related carcinoma, and it deserves further study.


Thomas H. Winters, M.D.


Joseph R. Di Franza, M.D.


University of Massachesetts


Worcester, Ma 01605 Medical Center


During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette smoke. Only one definite chmical carcinogen -- benzopyrene -- has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research into the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.


The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly con- centrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer, which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves con- centrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed.


Winters-TH, Franza-JR, Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,


New England Journal of Medicine, 1982;


306(6): 364-365 (reproduced w/o permission)


o E.A. Martel, "Alpha Radiation Dose at Bronchial Bifurcations From Indoor Exposure to Radon Progeny", Proceeds of the National Academy of Science, Vol. 80, pp. 1285-1289, March 1983.


o Naoimi H. Harley, Beverly S. Cohen, and T.C. Tso, "Polonium 210:


A Questionable Risk Factor in Smoking Related Carcingenisis."


o "Radioactivity: the New-Found Danger in Cigarettes," Reader's


Digest, March 1986.

 

(continued)...company walked in


anyway, I'm damn sure not selling ferts, or trying to scare anyone out of growing. Simply presenting some information, that I felt was/could be a valid concern. Especially to med-users.


I, personally, "ain't cool" with exposing myself to any more radioactivity than is necessary, and IMO, the validity of the studies indicate "high phosphate chemical fertilizers" like those used on tobacco, do just that.


I stay as close to 100% organic as I can, so it really isn't going to affect my product selection or procedure.

 

Good research and documentation Hic2. Reason #896 why MJ cultivators should use organic fertilizers.

 

Thanks iiindi. I was aware of some of information on tobacco, a google turned up the CC article and MJ, then lamonts doubts provoked my further investigation into any ties/relationship between the study and any fert compnies.


I was surprised at the information that popped up and seemed readily available, yet I've still not much about it in the "mainstream" news/media.


I just don't find it hard to believe big business/big money (monsanto, DOW,upjohns, ect) and tobacco companies(more big money), would have a problem getting information "swept under the rug", so to say.


But like Waylon 'n Willie say..


"You can cut out all fried foods,


"But you're still gonna die"


"You can jog up to heaven"


"But you still gonna' die"


You can stop gettin' high"


"But you're still gonna die"


ect, ect, ect...

 

Let me reassert where my doubts lie, I dont discredit the information found regarding tobacco, its probably all right on the money. But until you can prove with the same rigorous testing done on tobacco and the same reports in the medical journals that the same dangers are in fact a hazard with the cultivation of MJ Im not making the same imaginative leap of faith you are based on article where they sell "the cure". Until that time comes I dont intend to worry about it much the same way I give no heed to meteors falling on my head.


I dont particularly worry about those dangers since 99% of what I work with is organic, but I dont see the need to release a report based on speculative assumptions regarding MJ cultivation as tested with tobacco, thats not science, thats dookie.  

 

waylon and willie

 

My dookie tastes funny.

 

QUOTE

a report based on speculative assumptions regarding MJ cultivation as tested with tobacco, thats not science, thats dookie.

...

if similar or identical fertilizers are being used on MJ, it's not such a giant.."imaganative leap of faith", to assume similar effects would be obtained as a result. I don't think there have been such "rigerous testing" done in marijuana feilds. Does that mean it's an "unreasonable" assumption??...

...watch out the sky is falling..
You seem more interested in discrediting CC(which is fine, I'm not a big fan either), than opening your mind to the possibility/probability of the entire matter...and I'm NOT pokin' at you with a sharp stick here, just an observation..

 

Agreed on some points, and brings another, the credibility of any matter is subject to the source. CC is not the USDA, FDA, AMA or any other accredited establishment and should be regarded in the same light as The Star or The Enquirer is to factual and pertinent news.


Now heres where the problem lies, the transference of one set of factual and tested data to another subject based on nothing more than ifs and conjecture.


~ Ferts for MJ and tobacco fields I will assert are not identical and for that matter not even that similar. If this is the basis of the whole leap then more research needs to be done to know the difference/similarities between the ferts used by generally all MJ growers vs bulk raw ferts tobacco farmers use in their fields. Last time I checked indoor growers werent stocking up on anhydrous ammonia and the such and tobacco growers werent looking to buy 2,349 individual gallons of Budswel.


I suppose when fields of MJ become commonplace and we start farming it largescale with raw bulk ferts we should conduct a few studies then. Until then I will be thoroughly content with the infrequent prod of your stick.

 

QUOTE

Quote: from Lamont Pontoon on 3:12 pm on Mar. 3, 2005

I suppose when fields of MJ become commonplace and we start farming it largescale with raw bulk ferts we should conduct a few studies then.

i hope that day never comes. raw bulk chemical ferts are bad for watersheds, and are way more energy consuming to produce than organic based composted soil conditioners. when applied through a tea in a drip system it is economically feasable for a commerical farm too.

 

Bob Marley died from lung cancer...


I think thats the biggest misconception about marijuana use that people dont get lung cancer from it, they do. When you inhale enough smoke into the lungs regardless of what type of smoke it is, the smoke itself contains carcinogens due to the burning of organic matter. When marijuana is burned it is no longer marijuana it has been transformed into 100s of different carcinogenic substances that didnt exist before the plant was lit on fire (with a little THC thrown in there of course


Marijuana smoke contains carcinogens which can cause cancer, smoke in general does for that matter. all depending on your genetic makeup and how much you smoke will depend on whether you get cancer or not. The plant matter thats being burned in and of itself doesnt give you cancer its what takes place when that plant matter is burned, lit a flame, a transformation takes place.


IMO thats a dangerous mind set to have. If all you smoke is marijuana and your hacking and weezing in the mornings its time to cut down. Dont let an urban legend get you killed, smoke kills. Moderation is the key.

 

Yeah inhaling burned vegitation isnt probably the best thing for you but once again the leap is made to danger by the imagination and tranference of one substance to another.


Its a misconception when there arent any facts to back your statements. Please show any of us where you can back that statement with a fact or a study or anything besides speculation on what you think Bob Marley died from.


My contention is that if people were getting lung cancer from weed the govt and the tobacco industry would be bending over backwards to show it with lots of proof. I would go even farther that they have been working on trying to establish this proof for years but havent been able to. So far their biggest weapons against weed are mental stigma based on lies. Weed is for losers, weed is the gateway drug, smoke weed and only bad things can happen. If they had the magic bullet that weed caused cancer then I think we would all see it in 60 second spots forty times a day.


When there are hospitals filling up all over for tobacco related lung cancer and theres yet to be one bonafide case of lung cancer due to weed I have to wonder what else would be considered a misconception? I have an idea though,


Its a misconception that Bob Marley died from lung cancer as related to marijuana smoking and heres a link that backs that up. I can also furnish at least twenty more links that support that theory as well. The hard links to find are the ones that claim he just died from lung cancer alone. The impossible ones to find are the ones that say he died from lung cancer due to weed smoking.


http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031013.html