Steve Jobs

As many of you have no doubt heard Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, died yesterday. It is hard to begin to describe the impact he has had here, in Silicon Valley, and around the world. Think of all the jobs (small 'j') he has created, directly and indirectly, in the computer industry as well as in every other industry since virtually every industry now uses PCs, through his genius and spirit.

Here is a link to his Graduation Commencement Speech at Stanford in 2005. It's powerful stuff. The stuff that GIANTS are made of. It reminds me, with bittersweetness, of Jeb's spirit and helps me focus. Enjoy, nevertheless. It is worth it. I promise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

bob

.

Bob,

Thanks for the link. Steve Jobs was one of the more impactful innovators of our time.

Outside

Steve Jobs' death and Jeb's remind me what a curse cancer is, slaying the richest and poorest amongst us alike. Dr. John Gofman did a great deal of foundational research on how low level radiation contributes to cancer. Consider that the next time someone proposes nuclear power in your area - or offers you a cigarette. A main culprit in tobacco is the radioactive Polonium 210 the plant selectively uptakes from the soil and sequesters in its leaves. One pack a day renders the same amount of radiation as 365 chest X-rays a year. Think about it.

As some of you may know, I ran an Apple Computer Dealership for 16 years. When I started in 1994, Apple was going down the tubes. Microsoft was eating their lunch, and everyone including myself, blamed it on Apple not licensing their OS in the 80's. The stock price was around $17 a share, Gates invested $150 million to keep them afloat. Dell said in an interview that they were going out of business.

I was pretty convinced that Apple would go the way that Sony Beta went. If you remember Beta was better than anything else out there, Sony would not allow other companies to produce it, so they got together and smoked Sony with the VHS format.

Then, Steve Jobs comes back top Apple, cuts out the Apple "Clone" agreements ( I thought it was a bad move) then develops the imac. No floppy drive (you should have heard the complaints) something called USB ports, and variety of colors. I still didn't buy any stock!

So, he had a vision, that very few , including folks that were in the business had, and the rest is history. Damm, I wish I was wearing the same prescription glasses as he!

Pete

worcester wrote:Steve Jobs' death and Jeb's remind me what a curse cancer is, slaying the richest and poorest amongst us alike. Dr. John Gofman did a great deal of foundational research on how low level radiation contributes to cancer. Consider that the next time someone proposes nuclear power in your area - or offers you a cigarette. A main culprit in tobacco is the radioactive Polonium 210 the plant selectively uptakes from the soil and sequesters in its leaves. One pack a day renders the same amount of radiation as 365 chest X-rays a year. Think about it.

worcester,

Thanks to this post, I went out and looked up the health effects of tobacco (I already knew it was bad for you, I was researching the radioactive aspect of it specifically). Thankfully, I gave up tobacco a long time ago, but I have friends who still smoke and I want to bludgeon them with facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco

1 Sievert = 100,000mr (millirems) or 100rems (please check me on all this math).
60mS (milliSieverts) = 6000mr (millirems).
1 chest xray (1 film) = 6-30 mr
1.5 packs of cigarettes/day (per Wikipedia above) = 60-160mS/day (I'm guessing that the difference in dosage will have something to do with the tar content of the tobacco used, since the radioactive Lead-210 and Polonium-210 adheres themselves to the tar, which adheres itself to the mucous membranes in your bronchi?).

Let me be clear. As far as I am concerned tobacco is a public health hazard almost on a par with tuberculosis, due to its endemic and sanctioned presence in society. I am not, to say the least, a fan of tobacco and especially not of those cold-blooded killers and liars that run Lorillard and Phillip Morris. The news (and this is news to me) that tobacco also has a radioactive aspect, as well as an addictive component in nicotine, to it makes it even more despicable. At least nobody craves TB and try to stay away from people who have it. I just don't see how your numbers work as far as claiming that a pack a day = 1 chest x ray/day.

Before I start carpetbombing my smoker friends, I want to make sure I have this down cold. When you've got them by the shorts, their hearts and minds will follow, but you want to make sure you have a good grip first.

Thanks for your help, and for enlightening me further on the dangers of tobacco. I hope you can explain what I've missed, so I can proceed.

bob

.

Bob, The following is excerpted from my e-book, X-Rayed to Death. This should give you plenty of ammo. Sorry but the footnote citations didn't copy, but I've included them at the end...

Chapter 25: Who ordered the cover-up of the tobacco/radiation
connection?

“Consider the following statement made by Ian G. MacDonald, M.D.: ‘Cigarette smoking is a harmless pastime up to twenty-four cigarettes a day. One could modify an old slogan: A pack a day keeps lung cancer away.’
“Yes! He actually said those very words. And he wasn’t some doctor-for-hire, shilling for the tobacco industry. He was the chairman of the Committee on Cancer Research at the American Medical Association and a top official at the American Cancer Society. And he wasn’t uttering these pearls of wisdom in a drunken stupor at a backyard barbecue. They are part of official record because he made the statements before the Subcommittee on Legal and Monetary Affairs at the House Government Operations Committee on July 25, 1957. (“Here’s Another View: Tobacco May be Harmless,” U.S. News & World Report, Aug. 2, 1957, pp. 85-86.)”…quote from Harvey Diamond, author of FIT FOR LIFE: A New Beginning

“Put a radioactive warning symbol on each pack of cigarettes, and then you’ll see a dramatic drop in smoking.” – Mike Derderian, former long-time smoker.

Regarding ionizing radiation, 1964 was an important year for a couple of reasons. That’s when the U.S. Congress chartered the NCRP, and the U. S. Surgeon General reported on the links between smoking, cancer, and heart disease.
“What does smoking have to do with ionizing radiation?” you ask. The fact that you as a reader, like virtually every other person in America, have no idea how the two are connected attests to how effective nuclear industries and our government have been at minimizing awareness about the dangers of ionizing radiation.
Do you remember when Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian spy and enemy of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, fell ill in London and died in November, 2006, becoming the first known victim of lethal Polonium-210-induced radiation poisoning?
That was basically also the first time most Americans had ever heard of Polonium-210, yet it is the most pervasive form of low level radiation found in America today. Virtually every pack of cigarettes or can of chewing tobacco is contaminated with it, one of the main reasons why most tobacco-related cancers and heart disease develop.
Polonium-210 and Pb-210 (lead-210), which decays in the human body into Polonium-210, are naturally occurring radioactive minerals found among phosphate in the soil.
The huge phosphate strip mines of Gulf Coast and Central Florida are replete with them, and they become part of Florida’s phosphate fertilizer sold commercially around the world. Polonium-210 and Pb-210 also contaminate the local Florida air and water supplies downwind and downstream from the mines and contribute to the area’s exorbitant rate of birth defects.
Nationwide, one child in 125 suffers from congenital heart defects, the most common form of birth defects, yet counties along Florida’s Gulf Coast suffer from nearly twice that many or more.


Table 15 – Congenital Heart Defects in the 14 Worst Florida Counties
County Incidence Location
Charlotte 1 in 59 Gulf Coast
Collier 1 in 40 Gulf Coast
Dade 1 in 48 Gulf Coast
Desoto 1 in 65 Inland West Coast Phosphate Mining Area
Gadsden 1 in 62
Glades 1 in 33 Heavy Agricultural Area
Hendry 1 in 42 Heavy Agricultural Area, Future Phosphate Mining Area
Indian River 1 in 52 East Coast Home of St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant
Lee 1 in 33 Gulf Coast
Manatee 1 in 72 Gulf Coast
Monroe 1 in 55 Gulf Coast
Pinellas 1 in 47 Gulf Coast
Sarasota 1 in 65 Gulf Coast
Wakulla 1 in 63 Gulf Coast
Birth defects are known to stem from mutagenic factors. The most obvious mutagenic factor to which West Coast Floridians are exposed more than East Coast Floridians is the presence of phosphate dust, which introduces Polonium-210 and Pb-210, into their air and water.
Different plants absorb different nutrients selectively from the soil. Blackberries, for example, draw in much more manganese than other fruits. Potatoes selectively uptake magnesium and potassium. Horsetail draws in disproportionate amounts of silica, sunflowers uranium, and tobacco plants Polonium-210 and Pb-210.
Most American tobacco farmers fertilize with Florida phosphate. Their tobacco plants suck up Polonium-210 and Pb-210 from this phosphate fertilizer through their roots and also gather it as dust, concentrating it in the trichomes (hairlike or bristlelike outgrowths) of their leaves. Farmers harvest the tobacco, dry it, and ship it off to the big tobacco companies for processing, where it is chopped up and turned into cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco.
Then people smoke the cigarettes and cigars or chew the tobacco, exposing their mucus membranes, epithelial tissues of their lungs, and other tissues throughout their digestive tracts and circulatory systems to continual doses of low level radiation. As a result, smokers get many types of cancer and heart disease.
“Between 1938 and 1960, the level of Polonium-210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers.” An unfortunate coincidence is that during this same time period, cigarette consumption in the USA spiked from 1,564 per capita per year in 1935 to 4,171 per capita per year in 1970.
With the increased use of cigarettes, tobacco farmers increased their use of phosphate fertilizer to grow adequate amounts of crops to satisfy the demand. Thus, just when people started smoking more cigarettes, the Polonium-210 levels in their cigarettes increased dramatically. This deadly coincidence was mirrored by a dramatic increase in lung cancer deaths between 1955 and 1990. Deaths from heart disease also spiked during this time period.
The radioactivity found in a pack of cigarettes can be easily measured with a Geiger counter, and the cumulative dose from smoking a pack and a half a day is remarkable. The BEIR-5 Report stated that portions of the epithelium of the lung tissue of smokers receive a dose equivalent of 20 rems or rads per year.
Remember that the average mean dose of radiation from a chest X-ray as determined by the 1980 NEXT survey was 51 millirems. Thus, the annual dose from smoking a pack and a half a day is equal to approximately 400 X-rays!
Conversely, the amount of radiation exposure people get per hour of airplane flight is approximately the same as 1 millirem of exposure from a diagnostic procedure that exposes 1/3 of the whole body. Thus, a three hour flight is like getting 3/51 of a chest X-ray. One would have to fly for more than 51 hours to absorb the amount of radiation one would get from just 1.5 packs of cigarettes.
There is little dispute that Polonium-210 delivers significant amounts of radiation to both smokers and (via second hand smoke) to non-smokers. However, the following letter, entitled “Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke” provoked a flurry of scientific controversy from unexpected quarters after it appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine (1982; 306(6): 364-365):
“To the Editor: During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette smoke. Only one definite chemical carcinogen -- benzopyrene -- has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research into the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.
“The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly concentrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer, which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves concentrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed.
“Levels of Po-210 were measured in cigarette smoke by Radford and Hunt (2) and in the bronchial epithelium of smokers and nonsmokers by Little et al. (3) After inhalation, ciliary action causes the insoluble radioactive particles to accumulate at the bifurcation of segmental bronchi, a common site of origin of bronchogenic carcinomas.
“In a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day, the radiation dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is 8000 mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300 X-ray films of the chest per year. This figure is comparable to total-body exposure to natural background radiation containing 80 mrem per year in someone living in the Boston area.
“It is a common practice to assume that the exposure received from a radiation source is distributed throughout a tissue. In this way, a high level of exposure in a localized region -- e.g. bronchial epithelium -- is averaged out over the entire tissue mass, suggesting a low level of exposure. However, alpha particles have a range of only 40 um in the body. A cell nucleus of 5 to 6 um that is traversed by a single alpha particle receives a dose of 1000 rems. Thus, although the total tissue dose might be considered negligible, cells close to an alpha source receive high doses. The Po-210 alpha activity of cigarette smoke may be a very effective carcinogen if a multiple mutation mechanism is involved.
“Radford and Hunt have determined that 75 per cent of the alpha activity of cigarette smoke enters the ambient air and is unabsorbed by the smoker, (2) making it available for deposit in the lungs of others. Little et al. have measured levels of Po-210 in the lungs of nonsmokers that may not be accounted for on the basis of natural exposure to this isotope. (3)
“The detrimental effects of tobacco smoke have been considerably underestimated, making it less likely that chemical carcinogens alone are responsible for the observed incidence of tobacco-related carcinoma. Alpha emitters in cigarette smoke result in appreciable radiation exposure to the bronchial epithelium of smokers and probably secondhand smokers. Alpha radiation is a possible etiologic factor in tobacco-related carcinoma, and it deserves further study.

“Thomas H. Winters, M.D.
Joseph R. Di Franza, M.D.

University of Massachusetts Medical Center
Worcester, MA 01605

“Footnotes:
1.Martell EA. Radioactivity of tobacco trichomes and insoluble cigarette
smoke particles. Nature. 1974; 249:215-7.
2. Radford EP Jr, Hunt VR. Polonium-210: a volatile radioelement in cigarettes. Science.
1964; 143:247-9
3. Little JB, Radford EP Jr, McCombs HL, Hunt VR. Distribution of polonium-210 in
pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers. N Engl J Med. 1965; 273:1343-51.”

Except in one instance, the controversial reactions to the letter of Drs. Winters and Di Franza did not dispute the fact the Polonium-210 and Pb-210 from cigarettes pose a dangerous risk to health. That one dispute was based on a discredited study of only two smokers by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
Another letter pointed out, correctly, that there had been other carcinogens found in tobacco smoke besides benzopyrenes, namely a “wide spectrum of carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons … aza-arenes, aromatic amines (including beta-napthylamine), nickel, volatile nitrosamines, and especially tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines.”
However, most of the controversy arose because Drs. Winters and Di Franza did not adequately acknowledge how very much research had already been done to establish the links between Polonium-210 and Pb-210, their presence in tobacco products, and the attendant incidence of cancer and heart disease. [The full round of this correspondence can be read online at http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.rad.html. Unfortunately these letters are no longer available at the New England Journal of Medicine’s website.]
Also, Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, who once said that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source," responded to Drs. Winters and DiFranza with an even more damning indictment of the dangers of radiation from cigarettes:
“To the editor: The letter by Winters and Di Franza rivets much needed attention on the earlier finding of Radford and Hunt, (1) which is crucial to an understanding of the pathogenesis of smoking diseases. (2,3)
“Although Winters and Di Franza tellingly describe the mechanisms by which Po210 on insoluble particles in cigarette smoke causes lung cancer, they neglect the even more important matter of how Po210 and other mutagens from tobacco smoke cause malignant neoplasms, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and other diseases throughout the body of smokers (Table 1).

TABLE 1.
Effects of Smoking on Tissues Directly and Indirectly Exposed to Radiation in Current Cigarette Smokers*
Cause of Death Number of Deaths Observed/Expected (ratio)
Observed Expected
All causes 36,143 20,857 1.73
Emphysema 1,201 81 14.83
Cancer:
Of directly exposed tissue 3,061 296 10.34
- Of buccal cavity 110 26 4.23
- Of pharynx 92 7 13.14
- Of larynx 94 8 11.75
- Of lung and bronchus 2,609 231 11.29
- Of esophagus 156 24 6.50
Of indirectly exposed tissue 4,547 3,292 1.38
- Of stomach 390 257 1.52
- Of intestines 662 597 1.11
- Of rectum 239 215 1.11
- Of liver and biliary passages 176 75 2.35
- Of pancreas 459 256 1.79
- Of prostate 660 504 1.31
- Of kidney 175 124 1.41
- Of bladder 326 151 2.16
- Of brain 160 152 1.05
- Malignant lymphomas 370 347 1.07
- Leukemias 333 207 1.61
- All other cancers 597 407 1.47
All cardiovascular diseases 21,413 13,572 1.58
- Coronary heart disease 13,845 8,787 1.58
- Aortic aneurysm 900 172 5.23
- Cor pulmonale 44 8 5.50
- All other cardiovascular 6,624 4,605 1.44
Ulcer of stomach, duodenum or jejenum 289 93 3.10
Cirrhosis of liver 404 150 2.69
*Data adapted from Rogot and Murray. (4)
“Volatilized, soluble Po210, produced at the burning temperature of cigarettes, is cleared from the bronchial mucosa at the expense of the rest of the body, being absorbed through the pulmonary circulation and carried by the systemic circulation to every tissue and cell, causing mutations of cellular genetic structures, deviation of cellular characteristics from their optimal normal state, accelerated aging, and early death from a body-wide spectrum of diseases, reminiscent of the disease and mortality patterns afflicting early radiologists and others with long-term exposure to X-rays and other forms of ionizing radiation.
“The proof of circulating mutagens from smoking is that Po210 and other mutagens can be recovered not only from tobacco smoke and bronchial mucosa, but also from the blood and urine of smokers.
“R.T. Ravenholt M.D., M.P.H.
Centers For Disease Control
Washington Office
Rockville, MD 20857”
“Footnotes:
1. Radford EP Jr, Hunt VR. Polonium-210: a volatile radioelement in cigarettes. Science. 1964; 143:247-249
2. Ravenholt RT. Malignant cellular evolution: an analysis of the causation and prevention of cancer. Lancet. 1966; 1:523-526
3. Ravenholt RT, Lavinski MJ, Nellist D, Takenaga M. Effects of smoking upon reproduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966; 96:267-281
4. Rogot E., Murray JL. Smoking and causes of death among U.S. veterans: 16 years of observation. Public Health Rep. 1980:213-222
5. Warren S. Longevity and causes of death from irradiation in physicians. JAMA. 1956; 162:464-468
6. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Long term effects of ionizing radiation from external sources. Washington D.C.: National Research Council, 1961.
7. Office on Smoking and Health. Smoking and Health: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Office on smoking and health, 1979. (DHEW publication no. [PHS]79-50066). “
Note that Dr. Ravenholt of the CDC was aware back in 1982 that radiation from smoking precipitates heart disease. Edward A. Martell, another respondent to the NEJM letter by Winters and Di Franza, opined as early as 1975 that “The possibility that alpha radiation may be a mutagenic agent in atherosclerotic plaque formation is indicated by the results of Elkeles, who found anomalously high concentrations of alpha activity at the calcified plaque sites of atherosclerosis victims … The high incidence of early coronaries among cigarette smokers may conceivably be explained by the accumulation of insoluble radioactive smoke particles at the plaque sites. Such a possibility should be experimentally evaluated.”
By the last year of his life, in 1995, Dr. Martell had become “absolutely convinced that alpha-emitters play an important role in the genesis of artherosclerosis.”
In their own response to the letters received, Drs. Winter and Di Franza pointed out something that no one disputes: “In view of the potential role of alpha radiation in a variety of tobacco related neoplasias, we believe that this area deserves more intense research. We find it surprising that the National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active grants on alpha radiation as a cause of lung cancer (National Cancer Institute: personal communication).”
Surprising indeed.

footnotes:

Marmorstein, J. 'Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium in cigarettes?' South Medical Journal, February 1986. 79(2):145-50
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, Nov. 18, 1994, Vol. 43, No. SS-3, pp. 6-7, Table 1
Ibid.
Kilthau, GF. 'Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco,' Radiologic Technology, Vol 67, January 11, 1996
Litwak, Mark. 'Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?' Whole Life Times, April/May, 1985. p.11
R.T. Ravenholt M.D., M.P.H., “Letter to the Editor,” NEJM 307(5):309-313
Ibid.
Dr. John W. Gofman; Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Heart Disease; C.N.R. Book Division, San Francisco (1999); p. 329
Ibid.
Joseph Di Franza M.D. and Thomas H. Winters, M.D., “Letter to the Editor,” NEJM 307(5):309-313

Worchester,

I'm not a smoker and stay away from it as much as possible, but I had no idea about this. Thank you.

Outside

Worcester,

Ask and ye shall receive. Yikes!

According to DOE, http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/external/PublicActivities/EmergencyPublicInformation/AboutRadiation/tabid/319/Default.aspx

1 pack/day = 15-20 millirems/year.
chest xray = 10 millirems
dental xray= 10 millirems (but who gets one dental xray?)

Granted, this website is from Oakridge, so they're trying to downplay any danger posed by them.

Here, the EPA says something else:
http://epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html

They say 50millirems/medical xray.

Now, we have the Albert Einstein School of Medicine:
http://www.einstein.yu.edu/cci/page.aspx?id=9936

They say:
A local dose of chest xray = 10-50mr
CT Chest xray = 500mr


Here, it says 1mr = 3 puffs on a cigarette (now that's boiling it down!)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/radexp.html

If there are 6 puffs/cigarette (it has been a very long time since I have smoked, but I gotta believe there's more than 6/butt), that's 2mr/cigarette. 20 butt/pack = 40mr/pack. That's at least 1 chest xray/day.

So, it appears that 1pack/day >= 1 chest xray/day and a CT Chest xray = 10 packs/day. Nobody gets CT Chest xrays (or any other kind of xray, for that matter) unless they need them, but they choose to inhale a chest xray.

Momma always said "stupid is as stupid does".


bob

.

W

Man I am so glad I never took up the habit. And hope and pray neither do my kids.

Many years ago went out with a girl that was an absolute knockout in every way...... butt one, ( pun intended ) kissing her was like kissing an ashtray and I never could get past the smell. She went her way I went mine. I hope for here sake she quit.

Went to the dentist just the other day and had 4 x rays done. And unfortuately have a small cavity and have to go back next week.


I guess I am at my limit for the year. I wouldn't want to start glowing in the dark.


beat

beat wrote:W

Man I am so glad I never took up the habit. And hope and pray neither do my kids.

Many years ago went out with a girl that was an absolute knockout in every way...... butt one, ( pun intended ) kissing her was like kissing an ashtray and I never could get past the smell. She went her way I went mine. I hope for here sake she quit.

Went to the dentist just the other day and had 4 x rays done. And unfortuately have a small cavity and have to go back next week.


I guess I am at my limit for the year. I wouldn't want to start glowing in the dark.


beat

beat,

This is good ammunition for you to use if your kids should ever even think of starting...

bob

.