Using X-rays To Treat Inner Ear Infections and Deafness

Dr. Edward Calabrese and G Dhawan have published an article titled Historical use of x-rays: Treatment of inner ear infections and prevention of deafness in Vol 33(5) of Human and Experimental Toxicology, May 2014.

Purpose: This article provides an historical assessment of the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of inner ear infections.

Materials and methods: The research utilized a literature-based evaluation of the use of x-rays during the first half of the 20th century on the treatment of otitis media (OM), mastoiditis, and cervical adenitis and their impact on the occurrence of deafness.

Results: X-Rays were consistently found to be effective as a treatment modality at relatively low doses, in the range of 10–20% of the skin erythema dose, rapidly reducing inflammation, and accelerating the healing process. The mechanistic basis of the clinical successes, while addressed by contemporary researchers, is evaluated in the present article in light of current molecular biology advances, which indicate that clinically effective low doses of ionizing radiation act via the creation of an anti-inflammatory phenotype in highly inflamed tissue.

Conclusions: X-Ray treatment of OM, mastoiditis, and cervical adenitis was widely accepted in the first half of the 20th century by clinicians as an effective treatment when administered within an appropriate dosage range.

The paper summarizes results from a number of medical papers published mostly during the period from 1920-1940, though there are some from as early as 1902 and as late as the mid 1960s.

In a related effort seeking effective treatments for lymphoid tissue-related hearing loss, Samuel J. Crowe at the Johns Hopkins University developed treatments using radium implants that showed impressive results.

Based on extensive clinical experience, they concluded that the most efficient treatment of hearing impairment due to excessive lymphoid tissue is irradiation with radium or x-rays. So striking were the findings of this clinical research that they claimed there was the potential to reduce the number of deaf adults in the next generation by 50%.

The success led to numerous discussions about the best treatment regimes, the most effective doses, and the relationship of patient ages to doses and results. Not surprisingly, critics also asked questions about the side effects of ionizing radiation.
Read more »

Why is Radiation Biology Funding Disappearing?

Atomic Insights has posted a number of articles about the health effects of low dose radiation that question the continuing use of the linear no-threshold dose response assumption. Those posts often attract passionate defenders of the status quo and occasionally stray into nastiness at the very idea of questioning the validity of regulatory standards based […]

Read more »

Ambulance-Chasing Lawyer Taking Advantage of US Sailors

On most issues, I tend to side with the opinions expressed on Democracy Now. The journalists on that viewer/listener-supported show do real investigative journalism and often question the spin provided by commercial media. When it comes to nuclear energy, however, the show and its host are unreliable and biased. On March 19, 2014, Democracy Now […]

Read more »

Radiation, Pollution and Radiophobia

Cover - Nuclear Shadowboxing

While researching answers to comments made on the Atomic Insights post titled Healthy doses of radiation, I found a book titled Nuclear Shadowboxing: Legacies and Challenges. It includes a fascinating appendix titled Radiation, Pollution and Radiophobia that should be required reading for people who are interested in understanding more about the health effects of low […]

Read more »

Healthy doses of radiation

Doses of radiation that are lower than about 700 mGy/yr (see note below) are more likely to reduce cancer incidence and increase life span than to decrease it. In other words, moderate radiation doses are good for you in the same way as moderate exercise is good for you. The basis for this economy-altering assertion […]

Read more »

Tracking down and squashing “5 lethal doses” myth

Several times during the past couple of days, I have encountered comments from a variety of people who have claimed that a document released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request proved that the accident at Fukushima resulted in 5 people receiving lethal radiation doses. That claim does not match the […]

Read more »

Event at WIPP is newsworthy but not dangerous

It has been almost two weeks since a continuous air monitor alarmed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Though no one was hurt and no one is likely to be harmed in the future, an irregular drip of information interrupted by periods of silence has gradually painted a picture of a serious event worthy […]

Read more »

Response to contamination: WIPP and New Mexico should practice communication skills

Recent events at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) provide an opportunity to reinforce the need to practice good communication skills in order to improve the future response to a contamination event. Though there is no public hazard associated with airborne contamination levels of 0.64 Bq of Am-241 and 0.046 Bq of Pu-239/240, the New […]

Read more »

Low dose radiation doesn’t cause cancer, it helps prevent it

Atomic bomb victims: dose versus leukemia cases

Dr. Jerry Cuttler recently published a letter to the editor of the Archives of Toxicology titled Leukemia incidence of 96,000 Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors is compelling evidence that the LNT model is wrong. Here are the concluding paragraphs of the letter. The continued application of the invalid linear dose–response model for cancer risk assessment raises […]

Read more »

Don’t allow EPA to use “modernize” as euphemism for “tighten”

On February 3, 2014, The Hill Ballot Box blog published a call to action for nuclear energy and medical radiation therapy professionals titled EPA seeks to modernize nuclear standards. The EPA says it has not changed its radiation protection standards since the 1970s. Radiation health researchers would probably agree that there is a need to […]

Read more »

CT Scans Save Lives

By Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI) We are writing to express our concerns with a January 30, 2014 article by Rita F. Redberg and Rebecca Smith-Bindman. The article is alarmingly titled, “We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer”, and is accompanied by a frightening cartoon that appears to be a doctor holding an X-ray film, and […]

Read more »

Useful online book – Radiation and Health

The health effects of low level radiation are a continuing topic of conversation here and in many other places around the web. The Establishment view is known as the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption. Using that model, which was first applied to radiation standards development in 1956, every dose is assumed to impart risk to […]

Read more »