... leading health scientists say the radiation from Fukushima has been relatively harmless, which is similar to results found after studying the health effects of Chernobyl.
The most current analysis estimates that, out of 10,929 people in the exposed population who have died of cancer, only 527 of those deaths were caused by radiation from the atomic bombs. For the entire population exposed, in many cases to extremely high levels of radiation, that’s an excess cancer mortality rate of about two-thirds of 1 percent.
These studies have also found that, more than two generations later, there have been no multigenerational genetic effects on humans
hoi.polloi wrote:To add to the conversation, I have recently come across a "Geiger counter" — actually an entire stash of them in some strange sort of buried cache. That full story may have to wait for later, but for now, I am kind of delighted that something dealing directly with our latest questions about the world's physics has a chance to be examined closer. It's like getting access to a special telescope or microscope or something else the average person doesn't have just laying around. But having this clunky device right in front of me, I am not sure what exactly I am meant to do with it or how I can use it to try to test for radiation. Or determine how radiation ticks on one of these is different from — say — stray light waves causing static on a receiver.
ProperGander wrote:I came across this recently.
The Nuclear Scare Scam | Galen Winsor
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA
Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.
ProperGander wrote:The first time I came across allot of the really great research here, (...)
After decades of message boards and allot of nonsense, (...)
simonshack wrote:ProperGander wrote:The first time I came across allot of the really great research here, (...)
After decades of message boards and allot of nonsense, (...)
I think you meant to write 'a lot', ProperGander ?
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_c ... _allot.htm
Ernest Lawrence Was On Top Of Nuclear Medicine, Bomb - Scott S. Smith
The cyclotron not only smashed atoms, but also produced large quantities of radioisotopes, which had the potential to treat diseases.
Lawrence discovered that in spades in 1937. That’s when he and his brother, John, fought their mother’s uterine cancer.
John, a physician, came to Cal to do research on medical applications of radiation. He and Lawrence then overcame the resistance of their mother’s doctors to use the cyclotron to treat her uterine cancer.
At 67, she had been given only three months to live, but radiation caused the giant tumor to disappear. She lived 16 more years.
Philanthropies at the time donated far more money to medicine, public health, and biology than to physics. In 1933 the Rockefeller Foundation, a dominant supporter of American fundamental research in years between the wars, decided to concentrate on applications of the methods of physics and chemistry to biology and medicine. But Lawrence did not just give lip service to biomedicine. He believed in the promise of particle accelerators as a possible weapon against cancer. In 1937 Lawrence brought his mother, diagnosed with inoperable cancer, to San Francisco for treatment with Sloan's X-ray tube, after which her condition dramatically improved.
Keeping it in the Family
In 1936 Lawrence invited his brother, John, from Yale University’s medical faculty, to Berkeley to cooperate in trials using the cyclotron and its products in medical treatments. The result was huge success, to the extent that John Lawrence is now known as the father of nuclear medicine.
In 1937 Lawrence’s mother was diagnosed with inoperable cancer and given just a few months to live. Ernest and John decided to attack her tumor using an incredibly powerful x-ray machine that Ernest and his team had built and installed at the University of California’s medical school. The result was that his mother was completely cured. She actually went on to outlive Ernest.
Cyclotrons and Cancer Today
In addition to producing radioisotopes for cancer treatments, cyclotrons are still in use today producing proton beams, which yield neutron beams, which are used to attack cancers directly.
National Cancer Act of 1937
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was established through the National Cancer Act of 1937, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its passage represented the culmination of nearly three decades of efforts to formalize the U.S. government’s place in cancer research.
The act created the NCI as an independent research institute within the Public Health Service by merging the Office of Cancer Investigations at Harvard University and a pharmacology division of NIH. The NCI became the federal government’s principal agency for conducting research and training on the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. The NCI was also tasked with assisting and promoting similar research at other public and private institutions, particularly through reviewing and approving grant applications to support promising cancer research. Finally, the act established the National Advisory Cancer Council, now known as the National Cancer Advisory Board. The act represents the first time that Congress provided funding to address a non-communicable disease.
Seaborg’s mother was one of the first to benefit from the use of this radioisotope that her son had discovered. Fatally ill from hyperthyroidism, (a related condition from which her sister died), diagnosis and treatment with 131I led to her complete recovery and a long life. Former President George Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush are some notable people who were successfully treated for Graves' disease, a thyroid disease, with 131I. Radioactive iodine treatment is so successful that it has virtually replaced thyroid surgery.
From Radioisotopes to Medical Imaging, History of Nuclear Medicine Written at Berkeley - Jeffery Kahn
September 9, 1996
Numerous advances were recorded during this era of nuclear medicine at the laboratory. People suffering from polycythemia vera, a rare disease characterized by an over-abundance of red blood cells, were treated with doses of radio-pharmaceuticals. It was the first disease to be controlled with radioisotopes. In 1940, a pioneering treatment procedure debuted to treat leukemia. That was also the year in which hyperthyroidism first was diagnosed and treated using Seaborg and Livingood's iodine-131.
Just as Ernest Lawrence's cyclotrons made possible the creation of radioisotopes, these accelerators also made possible the use of beams of neutrons, protons, and heavy ions for the treatment of disease.
Much of the book on radiation safety was written here. [ ]
The Lab's Will Siri literally wrote the first textbook on the safe application of radioisotopes in biology and medicine. From 1945 to 1979, researchers developed and refined a model of the effects of inhaled radioactive particulates. Researchers here have been instrumental in promulgating guidelines that define the radiation limits of space travel. These findings have important implications for future interplanetary space travel by humans.
Around 8 in 10 uterine cancer patients receive major surgical resection as part of their cancer treatment.
Surgery, consisting of total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH-BSO), is the primary treatment.
mild adverse effects were recorded in 26% of EBRT patients in the PORTEC-1 trial, predominantly gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity
Apache wrote:They also write as if radiation treatment is magical...
Evolution of cancer treatments: Radiation
In 1896 a German physics professor, Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, presented a remarkable lecture entitled “Concerning a New Kind of Ray.” Roentgen called it the “X-ray”, with “x” being the algebraic symbol for an unknown quantity. There was immediate worldwide excitement. Within months, systems were being devised to use x-rays for diagnosis, and within 3 years radiation was used in to treat cancer.
In 1901 Roentgen received the first Nobel Prize awarded in physics. Radiation therapy began with radium and with relatively low-voltage diagnostic machines. In France, a major breakthrough took place when it was discovered that daily doses of radiation over several weeks greatly improved the patient’s chance for a cure. The methods and the machines that deliver radiation therapy have steadily improved since then.
At the beginning of the 20th century, shortly after radiation began to be used for diagnosis and therapy, it was discovered that radiation could cause cancer as well as cure it. Many early radiologists used the skin of their arms to test the strength of radiation from their radiotherapy machines, looking for a dose that would produce a pink reaction (erythema) which looked like sunburn. They called this the “erythema dose,” and this was considered an estimate of the proper daily fraction of radiation. It’s no surprise that many of them developed leukemia from regularly exposing themselves to radiation.
I have tried to find the figures for how many women undergo radiation treatment in the UK and then subsequently die from their "treatment" but I have failed to do so.
The Untreated Live Longer
For decades there has been a great deal of controversy within the medical community over what kind of medical treatment is most efficacious in treating cancer. Latest findings reveal all conventional medical treatment for cancer is virtually worthless.
The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, made a study lasting 25 years of the life span of cancer patients, and had concluded that untreated patients do not die sooner than patients receiving orthodox treatment (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), and in many cases they live longer. Dr. Jones delivered his bombshell report at the American Cancer Society's (11th) Science Writers' Seminar (March 28-April 2, 1969), in which he confirmed what he had written as early as 1955, in his classic paper. "Demographic Consideration of the Cancer Problem," published in Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences (Series II, Vol. 18, pp. 298-333).
In his 1955 paper, Dr. Jones demonstrates how cancer studies are manipulated (he politely calls them "bases" and "errors") in order to make it appear that the treated cancer patients live longer than the untreated. Referring to one particular study on breast cancer, he says: "Cases that died during treatment, or closely following treatment, were discarded because of the possible effect of the severity of treatment." (p. 316).
In 1969, before the American Cancer Society's Science Writers' Seminar, Dr. Jones pointed out that the failure of past survival studies were that they did not take into account that the worst, inoperable cases were left in the groups that were untreated. Thus many cancer studies were based on research done with operable and "healthier" cases, giving the mistaken judgment that surgery and radiation were of value in cancer treatment. When Jones corrected for such bias statistically he found that the life expectancy of untreated cases of cancer were greater than that of the treated cases. Dr. Jones concluded that "evidence for benefit from cancer therapy has depended on systematic biometric errors."
After almost 40 years as a cancer researcher, Dr. Jones found, for example, that survival in breast cancer is 4 times longer without conventional treatment. he stated, "People who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2 years. Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived an average of only 3 years. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, radical surgery on cancer patients does more harm than good." (The Naked Empress, Hans Reusch, p. 74)
It is important to note that no refutations of Dr. Jones' work have appeared, while on the other hand, his studies have been supported by other researchers, as a search of the Science Citation Index reveals.
Even the Journal of the American Medical Association took note of the phenomenon when, in its February 2, 1979 issue, it published an article on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer by Dr. Maurice Fox, a biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On the basis of studies carried out at the Harvard School of Public Health, Dr. Fox found, among other things, that:
1. Radical mastectomy was no better than simple lump removal.
2. Breast cancer was diagnosed twice as frequently in 1975 as in 1935. The death rate was also double, showing no progress had been made.
3. Those who refused medical procedures had a lower mortality rate than those who submitted.
4. Early detection meant accelerated treatment and early death.
In the September 18, 1984 New York Times and in an article in the September issue of Science '84, Dr. Hayden Bush, director of a regional cancer center in Ontario, Canada, made the following points (paraphrasing):
There is no real advance in cancer treatments. If there was, we'd see an improvement in mortality rates. What has happened is that there is now an emphasis in early diagnosis which starts the "survival clock" sooner. So that even with no real change in survival duration there would be an apparent improvement in survival rates by starting the clock at an earlier time due to early diagnosis.
Dr. John Baylor, an official of the National Cancer Institute, ra Harvard bio-statistician, and a consultant to the New England Journal of Medicine, said on the Today show in December 1984:
A lot of early lesions that are not cancer at all are being counted as cancer through these early detection methods. These people will go on to lead a normal life anyway the lesions will clear up by themselves. But they include these cases as cancer thus polluting the pool of real cancer patients and making it seem that survival rates have risen.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests