Glass Pipes Release the Most Radioactive Polonium-210 From Cannabis, While Water Pipes Filter Some Out | Research

The takeaway

Different cannabis consumption methods release dramatically different amounts of the radioactive contaminant polonium-210, with glass pipes releasing about 80% and water pipes about 40%, while cellulose filters absorbed about 20%.

Cannabis consumers interested in harm reduction; regulators assessing radiation risks from cannabis products.

80% polonium-210 release from glass pipes vs 40% from water pipes

What the researchers found

Smoking cannabis with a glass pipe released approximately 80% of the polonium-210 present. Water pipe and blunt smoking had lower desorption rates (around 40%). Water filters absorbed about 8% and cellulose filters about 20% of released polonium. Vaporization released increasing amounts of polonium-210 as temperature increased.

Why it matters

Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive alpha emitter that contributes approximately 7% of total internal radiation dose from ingestion. Cannabis accumulates it from atmospheric deposition and phosphate fertilizers. This is the first study to systematically quantify how much of this radioactive contaminant users actually inhale based on their consumption method.

The numbers in context

Glass pipe: ~80% polonium-210 desorption. Water pipe/blunt: ~40% desorption. Water filter absorption: ~8%. Cellulose filter absorption: ~20%. Vaporization desorption increased with temperature. Polonium-210 half-life: 138.4 days. 10 hemp samples analyzed.

How the study worked

Analysis of 10 dried hemp samples legally available in Poland. Polonium-210 concentrations were measured by radiochemical analysis. Desorption rates were measured across four consumption methods: glass pipe, water pipe (bong), cigarette (joint/spliff), and vaporizer at varying temperatures. Filter absorption efficiency was also measured.

What this study cannot tell us

Only 10 hemp samples from Poland were tested, which may not represent global cannabis products. Hemp (low-THC) rather than high-THC cannabis was used due to legal restrictions. The study does not directly measure radiation dose in human users.

How to read the evidence

Moderate: rigorous radiochemical analysis with multiple consumption methods, but limited to 10 Polish hemp samples and does not directly measure human exposure.

When this study was published

2024 study.

The bigger picture

Radiation dose calculations from cannabis have historically assumed a single consumption method. These findings show that the actual radiation exposure can vary by a factor of two depending on how cannabis is consumed, which has significant implications for risk assessment and harm reduction advice.

Questions still open

Do high-THC cannabis varieties accumulate polonium-210 differently than hemp? Would organic cultivation practices that avoid phosphate fertilizers significantly reduce polonium-210 levels?

Common questions

How does polonium-210 get into cannabis?

Polonium-210 deposits onto plant surfaces from atmospheric radon-222 decay and accumulates from phosphate fertilizers used in cultivation. It is absorbed by the plant and concentrated in the leaves and flowers.

Which method is safest regarding radiation exposure?

Water pipes released the least polonium-210 among smoking methods (about 40% vs 80% for glass pipes). However, water filters only absorbed about 8% of what was released. Cellulose filters in joints absorbed about 20%.

Read the original research

Quantifying of highly radioactive and radiotoxic polonium-210 intake from cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.): impacts of different smoking and vaporization techniques.

Environmental science and pollution research international, 31(51), 61138-61146

View on PubMed ↗Publisher’s paper ↗

Citation

Wieczorek, Jarosław; Boryło, Alicja. (2024). Quantifying of highly radioactive and radiotoxic polonium-210 intake from cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.): impacts of different smoking and vaporization techniques.. Environmental science and pollution research international, 31(51), 61138-61146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35263-w