Friday, 27 May 2011

Peak oil phosphate lung cancer


The known chemical carcinogens in cigarette smoke can not explain ~96% of lung cancer in smokers.

"However, for conventional cigarettes (i.e., R, Lt, and ULt cigarettes), as they are smoked by populations such as the United States and Canada, the lung carcinogen results obtained here indicate that, currently, it is only possible to account for ≤4% of the observed per pack-year risk for lung cancer." 2007

"the majority of the PO-210 in tobacco plants likely comes from high-phosphate fertilizers applied to the tobacco crop. ... PO-210 has been estimated to be responsible for 1% of all US lung cancers."2008

So that only leaves 95% of lung cancer caused by smoking cigarettes unexplained by smoking cigarettes.


  1. Have you read this:

  2. Klaus, yes I was aware of it but thanks anyway! Some of it makes sense to me and some does not make sense.

  3. It's also worth noting that estimates like that "1% of lung cancers caused by Po210 are pretty worthless. If the estimate were to be truly expressed in a "95% confidence interval" fashion it would probably be a spread more like .1% to 10% or even greater: in other words "explaining" somewhere between one LC per thousand and 100 LCs per thousand. My guess is that the number doesn't rest on a lot more than a bar napkin scribble done by some "health physicist" at the tail end of a late night binge. (I'll admit I may be *totally* wrong on this... anyone have a firmer source for the provenance of the figure and how solid it might be?)

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"