2 ms·

The article is just an informative piece for the general public. Adding more details would clutter the text and add little to non experts. I think that it is a

• parineum 6y ago
  Then they may have well just written "Smoking Bad". If the motivation is to educate people on the dangers of smoking (which they already overestimate due to the fear based anti-smoking campaigns) they should probably tell us why.
• xenonite 6y ago
  The link you give links to http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6020558 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6020558 "Radioactivity of Tobacco Leaves and Radiation Dose Induced from Smoking" The gist: > In estimating the radiation dose induced from smoking, it was concluded that the annual effective dose to lungs due to inhalation for adults (smokers) averaged to 80 μSv for 226Ra, 67 μSv for 228Ra and 105 μSv for 210Pb, that is 252 μSv in total. The annual effective dose due to 137Cs of Chernobyl origin averaged to about 200 nSv, that is three orders of magnitude lower than that of the naturally occurring radionuclides. The effective dose of 252 μSv per year must be compared with the average worldwide exposure to natural radiation sources due to inhalation 1.26 mSv y−1. (although the source for the radioactivity is not only fertilizer, but a combination of fertilizer, natural radioactivity, and to a tiny amount Chernobyl fallout. The plants were sampled all over Greece.)