When the former K.G.B. agent
Alexander V. Litvinenko was found to have been poisoned by radioactive
polonium 210 last week, there was one group that must have been particularly
horrified: the tobacco industry.
The industry has been aware at
least since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant levels of
polonium. Exactly how it gets into tobacco is not entirely understood, but
uranium “daughter products” naturally present in soils seem to be
selectively absorbed by the tobacco plant, where they decay into radioactive
polonium. High-phosphate fertilizers may worsen the problem, since uranium
tends to associate with phosphates. In 1975, Philip Morris scientists
wondered whether the secret to tobacco growers’ longevity in the Caucasus
might be that farmers there avoided phosphate fertilizers.
How much polonium is in tobacco?
In 1968, the American Tobacco Company began a secret research effort to find
out. Using precision analytic techniques, the researchers found that smokers
inhale an average of about .04 picocuries of polonium 210 per cigarette. The
company also found, no doubt to its dismay, that the filters being
considered to help trap the isotope were not terribly effective.
(Disclosure: I’ve served as a witness in litigation against the tobacco
industry.)
A fraction of a trillionth of a
curie (a unit of radiation named for polonium’s discoverers, Marie and
Pierre Curie) may not sound like much, but remember that we’re talking about
a powerful radionuclide disgorging alpha particles — the most dangerous kind
when it comes to lung cancer — at a much higher rate even than the plutonium
used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Polonium 210 has a half life of about
138 days, making it thousands of times more radioactive than the nuclear
fuels used in early atomic bombs.
We should also recall that people
smoke a lot of cigarettes — about 5.7 trillion worldwide every year, enough
to make a continuous chain from the earth to the sun and back, with enough
left over for a few side-trips to Mars. If .04 picocuries of polonium are
inhaled with every cigarette, about a quarter of a curie of one of the
world’s most radioactive poisons is inhaled along with the tar, nicotine and
cyanide of all the world’s cigarettes smoked each year. Pack-and-a-half
smokers are dosed to the tune of about 300 chest X-rays.
Is it therefore really correct to
say, as Britain’s Health Protection Agency did this week, that the risk of
having been exposed to this substance remains low? That statement might be
true for whatever particular supplies were used to poison Mr. Litvinenko,
but consider also this: London’s smokers (and those Londoners exposed to
secondhand smoke), taken as a group, probably inhale more polonium 210 on
any given day than the former spy ingested with his sushi.
No one knows how many people may
be dying from the polonium part of tobacco. There are hundreds of toxic
chemicals in cigarette smoke, and it’s hard to sort out how much one
contributes compared to another — and interactive effects can be diabolical.
In a sense, it doesn’t really
matter. Taking one toxin out usually means increasing another — one reason
“lights” don’t appear to be much safer. What few experts will dispute is the
magnitude of the hazard: the World Health Organization estimates that 10
million people will be dying annually from cigarettes by the year 2020 — a
third of these in China. Cigarettes, which claimed about 100 million lives
in the 20th century, could claim close to a billion in the present century.
The tobacco industry of course
doesn’t like to have attention drawn to the more exotic poisons in tobacco
smoke. Arsenic, cyanide and nicotine, bad enough. But radiation? As more
people learn more about the secrets hidden in the golden leaf, it may become
harder for the industry to align itself with candy and coffee — and harder
to maintain, as we often hear in litigation, that the dangers of tobacco
have long been “common knowledge.” I suspect that even some of our more
enlightened smokers will be surprised to learn that cigarette smoke is
radioactive, and that these odd fears spilling from a poisoned K.G.B. man
may be molehills compared with our really big cancer mountains.
Robert N. Proctor is
a professor of the history of science at Stanford University.