posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by Knives4eyes
You might be on to something.
You might not.
We need a series of 20 year studies which follow large groups to even begin to consider a connection. I am not aware of any such studies.
We'd need to measure lung cancer incidence in:
- control group of non-smokers
- radio smokers 5/day
- radio smokers 10/day
- radio smokers 15/day
- radio smokers 20/day
- nonrad smokers 5/day
- nonrad smokers 10/day
- nonrad smokers 15/day
- nonrad smokers 20/day
All the smoking groups would have to smoke specially grown tobacco which is carefully maintained and monitored by the science team, with the only
variable being whether radioactive fertilisers were used or not. We'd need to account for other lifestyle factors, location, second hand smoke
exposure, medical exposure, genetic history.
We'd need more than one of these studies.
Also would we give them filters or not? Could it be something to do with the particulate exposure from the leaves? We'd need another study perfectly
mirrored with and without filters.
Eh, we can't really speculate on whether the radioactivity has an effect on lung cancer until we do a study like the above.