The following thread is from alt.{*filter*}:

If this is exactly what they claim, then I'm not sure that this claim
means much of anything with respect to this problem.  The problem is
with the phosphate fertilizers, which are rich in uranium (I believe
they are from Florida).  This uranium breaks down into radium-226, which
further breaks down into radon-222, and eventually this is turned into
lead-210 and polonium-210.  It's a mess, isn't it?  Tobacco plants love
to absorb these radioactive elements from these fertilizers, and also
from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water.  I
believe that's why they're particularly radioactive, some other smoked
plants.

So, in order to reduce the cases of lung cancer, it would be necessary
for a tobacco company to acquire phosphate fertilizers that 1) have less
uranium, and 2) cost no significantly larger amount, before the
companies would even think of doing anything about it.  Since I don't
know anything about such fertilizers, this is where my knowledge ends.

I am cross-posting this to netnews.sci.agriculture in hopes that you
guys over there can help us with this one a little.  The question is:
does such a fertilizer exist?

- Chris
--

"The ambition of every poor Mexican is to sell enough pot so that he can
get rich enough to get drunk on {*filter*}." (Anonymous Mexican, from Lester
Grinspoon, _Marihuana Reconsidered_, 214)

[ Snipped ]

[ Snipped ]

[ from another post by same guy ...

[ Snipped ]

Yes, polonium-210, the same stuff that atom bombs are made of.

I believe it is the opinion of C. Everette Koop that this radioactivity,
not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancer [1].
Other estimates that have been made are 50% [2] and 95% [3].  This means

[ Snipped ]

[1]     Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine {*filter*}ion, Surgeon
General's Report, 1988.

[2]    Ponte, Lowell.  "Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in
Cigarettes," Reader's Digest, March 1986, pp. 123-127.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

************>  This is the only study which you quote which
has "radioctivity" and "cigarette OR tobacco" linked in the
title.
        Its just not convincing me . .   <*****************

[3]    Litwak, Mark.  "Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?"
Whole Life Times, Mid-April/May, 1985, p. 11.

[ Snipped ]

Yes, the theory is that it's from the fertilizer, which is thrown up by
the plows and sucked in by the tobacco leaves' tiny hairs, and also
through the root system.

[ Snipped ]

Well, I think you're jumping the gun big time here.  There is a reason
why cigarettes are causing hundreds of thousands of cases of lung cancer
every year, and yet, Slikker in his experiments on pot-smoking monkeys
could not find a single sign of lung cancer.

        Not too to surprising considering cancer takes years
to manifest itself.  How long were the monkeys exposed to smoke ?
(no, I don't feel like looking it up myself ....:) ?

[ Snipped ]

        Maybe, or maybe we just need someone out there to
do some libray searching for us .........any volunteers .....

[ stick those stupid >s in for yourself from now on ]
[4]     Hammond, E.C., L. Garfinkel, H. Seidman, and E.A. Lew. "Some Recent
findings concerning cigarette smoking," In: Origins of Human Cancer.
New York:  Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1977. p. 101-112.

There is still much left to be discovered about the radioactivity
theory, but I think it's safe to say that the evidence in support at
this point in time is much stronger than that against.  It seems to be a
real danger.  What is outrageous is just the fact that this theory has
been around since 1964, and the public still isn't fully aware of it.

The joy of sources ...
--

"The ambition of every poor Mexican is to sell enough pot so that he can
get rich enough to get drunk on {*filter*}." (Anonymous Mexican, from Lester
Grinspoon, _Marihuana Reconsidered_, 214)

        Hmmmnnnnnn,  I am interested to what responses this
        elicits.

        Peter J.

  This is nonsense.  Polonium is NOT the same as Plutonium.  They are
entirely different elements and anyone with a touch of education should
know this, including Mr. Christopher B Reeve.  This is not to say that a
problem with contamination of tobacco via fertilizer may not exist and needs
addressing, but this bomb stuff has no business being in the discussion.  
(Fallout from atmospheric testing in the '50s and '60s and whether such got
into the cooking.net">food chain is a whole 'nother topic which I won't touch.)  

WHH

This makes no technical sense -- the sentense which begins with "Tobacco ...
is simply technical garbage, and just plain wrong [ Snipped ]

While certainly true, i.e. Po is not Pu, polonium is a alpha emitting
radioactive element which has been found is cigarette smoke.  Its also an
integral part of and found in many smoke detectors on the market today.  

RSC

Atom bombs are made of Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239, not Polonium 210.
If polonium would do, bombs would be a lot easier to make.