Content deleted Content added
Line 208:
From ''[[The New York Times]]'' on December 1, 2006: "The [tobacco] 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..." [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html?ex=1322629200&en=4ee500d70a3216dc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss] --[[User:Howrealisreal|Howrealisreal]] 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on! Seriously. SOmetimes it becomes increasingly obvious the whole anti-tobacco thing is mostly about popular piling on and taxing something. SO now we are supposed to believe the tobacco plant is actually an evil devil plant that has evolved to selectively absorb damaging radioactive materials from the soil, and manage to convert it into a more deadly form identical to the original save that its half life is increased so it stays radioctive in signifigant quantities despite a long aging process in tobacco? Tihs is done selectively. Meaning if there are nutrients in the soil that could lead to the further survival of the tobacco plant or its greater health, its roots have evolved to preferentially absorb deadly radioactive particles instead. Some lies are so incredibly obvious, everyone believes them. [[User:88.153.200.32|88.153.200.32]] 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
==Smoking paradoxes==
| |||