Tobacco Documents Online

~~..~s~:~~:~;~~ _: • , . -..:, _ . In talking with him I had in mind the general attitude of the } The applications from Werthamer (#`"j95 and #596) were submitted . -~ . ~. , The Noakes proposal is of quite a different character. The Board as expressed when the subject of Polonium-210 in tobacco first arose. The consensus, as I recall it, was that any-realistic effort to define the general problem of dose-response relationships in exposure to any alpha- possible health hazarddue to polonium in tobacco must be part of the deeply and extensively involved in suchistudies it seemed inadvisable for emitting radioactive material. Since the Atomic Energy Commission is very the Council to dabble with that nroblem on a small scale. about the proposed methodology, (2) because it proposed to study differences to the Board in March 1967 to relieve the staff of responsibility in dis- position. It was denied, (1) because of doubts expressed by Dr. Hasterlick in lung burden of polonium in smokers vs non-smokers without any kind of provision for determining "how much is too much" in terms ofhazards and th l (3) on e genera grounds mentioned above. ; connection suggest that this should be the case. The proposed worY, is aimed man impressed me as knowing what he was talking about and his institutional at following up clues as to the origin of polonium-210 in tobacco with a possibility of demonstrating relatively simple and inexpensive means of re- ducing the content materially. The same study may also be pertinent to many other crop plants. memorandum. application to a member of the industry technical group for comment, and Whether or not polonium-210 is presently a hazard in tobacco, or whether this can easily be shown, it seemed to me that the industry, mig:qt be interested in such means of mini.mizing this contamination, as a matter of public policy. I know that the companies have sponsored some work on polonium but do not know whether this has included anything substantially ,equivalent to what Noakes proposes here. Hence, I am,sending a copy of this __ ~ .,.,:...•;. _ .. :. : . ., <. -.. ~., .pvrr3S.~ r_~il~i~La:'J~i~i~~._~:_4{t -:~.i1i.4f11-aaLi~.n`j.-,.,_:tt.Ti.~it~.....`.ra. ~• Z ,~ : ~}~`'y +~."';~53.nL:..;'~r,$,~t~'`'.•: . riXOUxCIL FOR TOBACCn RESLARCFi-U.S.A. 0)

" ' R Ou\'CIL FO TOBACCO RESEARCI3 - U. S. A. im. ; MEMORANDUM - CONT' D' ' y y r • g p q p . ~~ S abe ance at present We have been tr in to develo bette e ui ment and ,.polonium-210 grown-in" without full consultation concerning methods of exposure and of systematic biochemical and pathological examination. He merely indicates that he would be glad to cooperate in setting up such studies and in providing the materials if this kind of follow-up should-be wanted after the first phase. I think this questi=must be left in Noakes included parts 2 and 3 of the proposal in a tenta ve manner. ti `'He is not a biologist and would not undertake systematic studies of animal -' exposures to smokes from tobaccos containing different known levels of n ~ / ` ~ r, a~y .w.'1h. ..~' direct carcinogenic effect of cigarette smoke on the lungs. Hence, we cannot judge at present how worthwhile it would be to try comparing the actions of three smokes with different polonium levels. Further experience gained the next year or so may help decide this question. Similar questions`r~ pertain to such biological test systems as that which Dr. Furst has been~ ±.~ using, the Heston intravenous administration methodithat Dr. Homburger has w~ been trying out, or to the mouse-skin painting method. - -- . , , . : . .. - _methoas ror exposing small animals chronacally to whole, fresh, "normal" cigarette smoke and for measuring the actual exposures achieved. Such exposures have not so far given any clear or reproducible evidence of a ~ R. C. H. .4 ! ._..--.,. . . , ,... . ,, ... .. .. . ... .. . . Y;kM~~ P.S. I am enclosing a copy of a k~ paper by C. W. Francis and G. Chesters of , the University of Wisconsin entitled Radioactive Ingrowth of Polonium- 210 in Tobacco Plants, which may anticipate Noakes to some degree. . R L. A copy has been sent to Noakes for his comment. .._ .. .. . _:` i a~a

---