Can low dose radiation stimulate improvement in patients with Alzheimer Disease?
Many people have a strong fear of contracting “the big-C.” Though I share that concern based on my personal observation of too many loved ones who lost their battle with cancer, my personal nightmare disease is Alzheimer’s. It’s difficult as someone who thoroughly enjoys challenging mental activity to imagine the experience of slowly losing my mind.
Unfortunately, I’ve watched too many people go through that exceedingly frustrating experience. I’ve been one of the affected family members.
I was encouraged, therefore, by reading Treatment of Alzheimer Disease With CT Scans: A Case Report, by Cuttler et. al. The paper documents the positive outcome experienced by a patient with an advanced case of AD (Alzheimer Disease) after receiving a series of CT (computed tomography) scans, each of which deposited approximately 40 mGy (40 mSv or 4 Rem) to her brain.
Here are a few selected quotes from the paper.
The patient is 81 years of age. She began to exhibit symptoms of dementia about 10 years ago, when her illness was diagnosed as the onset of AD. Her disease had progressed gradually to the final stages of advanced AD. The patient had been in hospice care for several months, since April 8, 2015. Hospice care is allowed only if life expectancy is less than 6 months. A neuropsychologist examined her on May 21 and found her to be completely nonresponsive. The patient would frequently refuse her medications and was almost totally noncommunicative. She would only rarely utter a single word and that word would not be appropriate. She was almost immobile; she had not attempted to rise from her wheelchair in months.
Her spouse was aware that low doses of ionizing radiation generally stimulate a patient’s protection systems against diseases and age-related deterioration.9 He requested her physician to prescribe a standard CT scan to determine any anatomical changes that have occurred and to stimulate neuroprotective systems. Two scans were carried out on July 23, 2015. Two days later, her caregiver, who was unaware of this radiation treatment, reported a noticeable improvement. The caregiver was quoted as saying “She is doing so well that it is amazing. I have never seen someone improve this much. She wanted to get up and walk. She was talking some, with more sense, and she was feeding herself again.”
Another CT scan was administered on August 20, and patient’s condition continued to improve. During the week of September 14, the following behaviors were observed:
- A sign of old memory return was seen when she called her daughter’s old roommate by name and then said “roommate.”
- An improvement in motor function was seen when, in an exercise group, the patient lifted her leg and did several head turns in phase with the group.
- The patient often talked in 3- to 5-word sentences as well as shorter responses, such as “yes, no, maybe, and so on” Whatever her verbal response, it almost always seemed appropriate.
The patient’s improvement following these CT scans was being noticed by all of her rotating caregivers, by her 2 personal caregivers, by all family members, and by visiting friends. Slow but steady improvement continued for about another 3½ weeks.
There is adequate acknowledgement in the paper that results for a single individual, while interesting and exciting, must be confirmed with properly designed studies. As one step in the process of enabling those studies to be undertaken, the paper recommends investing the time required to prepare a compelling ethics case supporting the value of conducting the treatments on people suffering from an untreatable illness.
Even under the assumption that all radiation carries some risk, the benefits would significantly outweigh the potential harm. Someone old enough to be suffering from AD is too close to death to have time remaining on earth to develop any post-treatment malignacies.
The specific story related in the case report includes a cautionary aspect as well.
An additional CT scan was given on October 1. Almost immediately, a significant setback was observed with an estimated loss of about 80% of the gain. This was very discouraging initially, but a slow recovery of cognitive ability began again. A neuropsychologist examined the patient on October 28 and indicated that she was able to give some simple verbal responses, which reflected some minimal improvement from the May 21 examination by the same doctor.
The patient’s slow progress continued until November 20, when she was judged to be no longer eligible for the hospice care that had begun on April 8.
The full text of the paper, with references, is available in an open access format.
This experience cries for follow-up investigation. I’m excited about the possible positive effects on the lives of the patients and their families.
Update (April 10, 2016) The paper’s lead author, Dr. Jerry Cuttler, visited the comment section yesterday. He described the current status of additional study. His comment include this important information.
The patient was discharged by the hospice to a mental care home. Her condition continues to improve.
Very interesting! You know what I’d fear even more? That medical doctors would deny such treatment based on their own fear of radiation and/or in their fear of litigation if things didn’t work out because of this dangerous and irresponsible treatment.
“this dangerous and irresponsible treatment.”?
Rod…I too fear such a malady, having watched my mom’s mental capacity diminish as she pressed on into her nineties. So any prospective cure or treatment is cause for optimism. But surely, basing a conclusion on one person’s reaction to ct scans is pretty far out there on the optimism scale.
However, one hopes that this will prompt furthet study, as I’m sure it will.
Who wouldn’t want this to work?
Rod and all, I seriously urge caution.
I reviewed this paper privately a couple of months ago, and I have great concerns about the way it has been written, the conclusions drawn, and, even bearing in mind this was not a planned experiment but something that happened ad hoc, the lack of evidence other than reported observations.
To wit, the paper says:
“This case report provides human evidence that low doses of ionizing radiation to the brain, as provided in several normal CT scans, can produce significant improvements in the condition of a patient with advanced AD”.
No, it absolutely does not provide evidence of this. It provides nothing of the sort. It is a single, intriguing anecdotal situation with one, low quality strain of evidence being observation and reporting from a situation where no one was actually intending to study this.
“This evidence suggests a need for clinical studies to develop an optimal treatment, based on the stimulation of the adaptive protection systems with low doses of ionizing radiation or other stressors”.
Absolutely not. At best, this paper provides the starting point for an argument to create a properly designed study, by a dispassionate expert team, to establish evidence that the observed effect is even real. This is nowhere near ready to be talking about optimal treatment.
There is no reference to standardised testing from physiotherapists or occupational therapists, which is common and readiliy available, to objectively track the reported progress. There is no proposed follow-up.
There is no blood testing for changing in potentially relevant proteins. http://www.alzheimers.net/12-3-14-blood-test-detects-alzheimers-early There is no brain imaging evidence considered even though, ironically, it was brain imaging technology being used as treatment http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312396/ .
It is an exciting case study that arose in informal circumstances. That is all. the conclusions are a great over-reach by the authors and scientific minds need to approach this in a scientific manner.
I roger all of your concerns and agree that this is an intriguing case report, no more and no less.
In addition to the statements that cause you concern, the paper includes numerous statements of caution. The authors clearly acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done. I agree that it is too early to develop optimal treatments, but my impression is that the researchers believe that they need to generate enough enthusiasm to overcome the expected reaction from those who stubbornly assert that all radiation carries a risk and cannot possibly be beneficial in its own right.
The people with that position grudgingly admit that radiation is a useful diagnostic tool and occasionally accept it as a sort of “last resort” tool in excising inoperable cancer, but they have an almost impenetrable opposition to the use of low dose radiation as a therapy using adaptive response mechanisms that stimulate improvements rather than damage DNA.
Opponents of radiation therapies have eliminated the use of radium implants swollen lymphoid tissue (adenoids) and resist the use of palliative low dose radiation treatments.
As the paper suggests, the results from cases like the one reported — and it is not the only similar case available — should be intriguing and exciting enough to stimulate the completion of a solid ethics case supporting additional research using radiation as a therapy on human subjects.
After all, just think of the kinds of results in the pharmaceutical world that are sufficient to stimulate additional testing on human subjects. Think also of the “potential side effects” that are accepted as justifiable risks for any one of hundreds of different approved drug therapies.
“Think also of the “potential side effects” that are accepted as justifiable risks for any one of hundreds of different approved drug therapies.”
Indeed. The spoken “fine print” at the end of many pharmaceutical ads reminds me of something from Saturday Night Live back in the early 1980s. The ad for “Happy Fun Ball” which is followed by a list of cautions that ends with “Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Ball.”
On this occasion I cannot offer anything conciliatory on the topic. We criticise other published work for far less.
Generating enthusiasm through sub-standard publication is a bad idea, though perhaps an understandable one. I don’t think the paper should have been accepted in this form.
Well my 95 year old father who has Alzheimer’s developed a brain tumor. Couldn’t put names to faces. He has targeted radiation on his brain. Now turning 96, and after almost a year of radiation, he told me on the phone the other day that he has started to easily place names with faces. He thinks it’s the aricept. I instinctly new immediately that it was the radiation. Unfortunately for me I can easily feel things that don’t make sense to the medical community; I think because I am a published song writer and musician I have a much easier time seeing through the curtain that others with less creative imaginations just get stuck behind. I think there is definitely a chance that radiation might be able to to break up plaques in the brain or something like that. I’m not very hopeful that the brainy kids could ever figure this out.
Interesting story. It reminds me of:
– the case story of the lung cancer patient, who refused chemo and radiation therapy and left hospital. He started to take massive amounts of Omega-3 pills and cured himself. 10years thereafter he was still healthy (at age 88!).
– the electro-shocks, high voltage electro pulses administered to the brains, which are used in psychiatric clinics when psychiatrists run out of treatment options.
While the electro-shocks clearly damage part of the brain, it has beneficial effects in quite a number of cases!
– the fact that smoking (nicotine) does help Ulcerative Colitis patients.
So may be that just delivering a change or shock to the human organisms, creates some response with a chance that it’s beneficial.
The impression of the patient that he/she will heal also plays an important role.
The idea that the CT-scan radiation creates a significant response is unlikely as the CT-scan dose of 40 mGy converts to only 1-2 mSv, which equals ~ 6 months of background radiation in USA.
Bas, 40mGy to the head converts to 1-2mSv equivalent whole body dose, since other organs that are more sensitive to radiation than the brain get much less radiation in a head scan.
However, given that most scientists tend to agree that Alzheimer’s is a condition of the brain, the relevant dose is still 40mGy, with a very high dose rate.
But what I find most intriguing is that you state that 1-2 mSv is unlikely to create a significant response, when you just half a year ago where promoting studies that claim genetic damage so massive that it causes a significant sex ratio change from doses <1nSv/year.
Have we got some anecdotal evidence here that absurd radiophobia is curable by repeated exposure to science?
Meanwhile in Germany, the media and even the federal Government are increasingly re-writing history in Orwellian fashion by using the 18,500 victims of the Tohuko earthquake and tsunami as Fukushima nuclear accident victims. No lie is too big or too distasteful to be used to smear nuclear power in aid of the coal industry and the “green” agenda.
It is not too hard to figure out on which side of the nuclear debate the liars and the money are concentrated.
Yes, those German publications are misleading. Though corrected in the response to the first commenter at the Facebook page (amazed they have a government page).
Your intriguing point:
At cell division the DNA is single stranded, hence cannot be repaired by the repair mechanism as there is no reference. That implies that vulnerability for radiation increases strongly with increased frequency of cell division.
The second link in my comment below shows that 10yrs old are ~13times more vulnerable than 40yrs old. Alzheimer patients are in general much older, so you can assume that those are ~40 times less vulnerable.
Small children grow much faster than 10years old (as % of their weight ~10times?).
New born babies again much faster.
So new born are >100 times more vulnerable.
But fetuses, especially in their first month, grow much faster than new born (as % of their weight 10-100times?).
So studies showed significant increases of birth defects in areas >1,000mile from Chernobyl due to some increase in background radiation. E.g. in former E-Germany.
Sperm is produced shortly before ejaculation/conception, via extreme high rate of cell division. Hence sperm is far more vulnerable.
As male sperm is ~3% smaller than female sperm, it has 3% less chance to be (deadly) hit. So if radiation increases the ratio m/f sperm increases. Hence the m/f sex ratio of new born will increase.
UNSCEAR reported in its 1958 report to the UN that this m/f ratio change is a sensitive indication for increased levels of (damage by) radiation.
So you find those m/f sex ratio jumps & increases everywhere where the radiation increases. E.g. also at Sellafield where workers in radiation environments get ~39% more boys than girls.
So if you want a boy, it’s a nice place to work. But don’t mind the extra chance on genetic damage for your offspring.
Bas, since you put so much trust in German authorities, you may find the following from the official Facebook page of the German government interesting:
We commemorate the victims of the Fukushima catastrophy.
Exactly five years ago in Japan a heavy earthquake triggered a tsunami, and thus the disaster in the nuclear power plant of #Fukushima. We express our deepest sympathy to all of the families of the 18,000 victims.
I find it absolutely disgusting how the victims of earthquake and tsunami are here sold as nuclear victims.
As the next step of the Orwellian re-write of history, we will probably hear that the horrible footage of the tsunami was faked by the all-powerful nuclear lobby in order to cover up the full extent of the accident.
Sorry for double posting, it looked like my first comment had disappeared into the ether.
When you cite, please add the excuse at the same page:
“Sorry for the wrong impression. To clarify: We don’t want to suggest that the 18,000 deaths concern the NPP accident.” (my shortened translation)
I experience sometimes similar delay with longer postings.
Not sure whether it’s bad. It gives more time to think.
Sorry this does not cut it. They admit that the wording is misleading, but do not change it. This is because the misleading wording is not an accident. As you say, it is an excuse. It is definitely not an apology.
The WDR link also shows that there is a lot of effort going into building the myth of the 18000 victims of the fukushima nuclear catastrophy. This number fits exactly to that of the horror phantasy young adult fiction “die Wolke” by Gudrun Pausewang. This has been compulsory reading in German schools since 1987, often at the impressionable age of 11.
It tells the story of a reactor accident at the Grafenrheinfeld NPP. The consequences are dreadful. Nobody in Zone 1 (which seems to include most of Schweinfurt) survives. Police and military cordon of Zone 1 and shoot anyone trying to get out, (nice extreme reinforcment of the atom state = police state myth) because they are so “irradiated” that they would endanger others (nice reinforcement of the myth that radiation is contagious). 18000 are dead from ARS within a week, and that is only the official number (reinforcing the myth that governments always “downplay” nuclear risks and are part of the nuclear lobby).
Millions suffer ARS symptoms, including the 14 yo protagonist, who comes never closer than 150 km to the accident, but still sufferes severe ARS with permanent hair loss. She also looses her brother in an accident in the chaotic evacuation and her parents and baby brother and Grandmother who happen to be in Schweinfurt at the time. In the next couple of months, lots and lots of people get leukemia, etc, etc.
All this is presented as “realistic scenario”. Then comes Fukushima, and there is not a single case of ARS. Still, green politicions immidiatly stated that “Fukushima has by far exceeded the worst fears of anti-nuclear campaigners”. Also from day 1, they were mixing the victims of the natural desaster into statements about the reactor accident. Now this practice has become mainstream.
To understand the deep-rooted emotional aversion against nuclear power in Germany, this book is a must read. It is a masterpiece of propaganda. Childhood indoctrination works, as is well known in Germany.
This last comment off you doesn’t fit at all with the very factual descriptions that I read at German government pages. Neither with German culture.
They also state confusing or opposing evidence. E.g. that the chance for tumor at the central nerve system seems to be smaller when the children live more near the NPP (though the numbers and significance value are very low)..
I still didn’t find out who runs that seemingly German government face book page? I find it very unlikely that it’s an official German government page.
Bas, regarding the question whether the facebook page is genuine, there is no doubt it is. Obviously it is not run by Merkel herself, but by the social media group (8 employees) of the government press office. As for the Fukushima entry, Minister of foreign affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) is the first one who ‘liked’ it. So in this case the content is endorsed from the highest level.
No. From the link you provided “head received an absorbed dose of 44 mGy and, since x rays have a radiation weighting factor of 1, an equivalent dose of 44 mSv.”
The brain is the organ of concern for AD. You’re confused between whole body effective dose and the dose focused on the organ where response is desired.
Agree that the brains get more. Though not 44mSv as the ‘expert’ goes on with:
“Because radiation risks to nerve cells and the brain are relatively low compared to other tissues ….”.
That 44mSv also doesn’t fit with the information given by ACR-RASNA in the table.
The increased health risks (cancers, etc) after a latency (up to several decades, as with smoking, asbestos, etc), also with CT-scans, are the main reason low level radiation is no longer seen as a viable therapy option.
But this hardly applies to Alzheimer patients as those are in general old, hence less susceptible (10yrs old implies being ~13 times more vulnerable than 40yrs old, etc), and have short life expectancy left.
So we may start controlled experiments with brain damaging technologies (such as electro-shock, radiation and ultra-sound) in order to find which created damage to the brain does help patients with Alzheimer disease.
1. More activities (physical and mental) are important in order to delay the onset and progress of Alzheimer. It’s remarkable that those also deliver increased levels of DNA damage and repair activities..
However it should be noted that an up-regulated damage protection & repair mechanism, also delivers a shorter life span. People with intense physical activities during decades don’t live very long, though they don’t get the usual wealth illnesses.
2. Cuttler refers to a dog experiment in fig. 2. His 2b graph suggests hormesis, but the data in the 2a graph clearly does not show hormesis.
Your link shows that even for 10 year olds, the risk is very low. ERR 0.9/Gy for brain tumor in 50 years of follow up. This is not even a doubling of risk for a massive dose of 1Sv.
In contrast, the infamous KiKK study claims a doubling of risk for childhood leukemia from living within 5km of a nuclear power station, which gives an average additional dose of <0.00001Sv.
Even the BfS had to admit that the doses are by a factor of 1000 to 10000 too low to explain the apparent effect.
Also note that the KiKK study claims 20 additional cases in 24 years in the whole country.
So one one hand we have nuclear power, where the emissions are at least 1000 times too low to explain 1 additional case of childhood leukemia per year.
On the other hand we have coal power, where the emissions are large enough to cause 3000 excess deaths per year (33000 years of life lost).
Yet the Germans chose coal. German coal plants emit 300 million tons of CO2 each year, 1% of the global emissions. Does it make you sad that most of the Netherlands will be underwater in the next 200 years? And that the mighty glaciers in Tibet or New Zealand will be gone? Or do simply not care?
The Germans observed and experienced Chernobyl much stronger than we.
They prefer to avoid the risks that nuclear cripples Germany, and are moving towards 100% renewable. I agree with their choice.
Of course coal will also be moved out.
Your linked Greenpeace study is interesting.
In NL we had recently first improved measurements about microscopically small fine dust particles (PM2.5, and the much smaller ultra fine dust which is assimilated in the blood) around our international airport Schiphol, Amsterdam.
The results were alarming.
And we don’t know yet, how to adapt planes such that they produce much much less.
The least we can do is to tax aircraft fuel, just as car fuel, which tax can be used to compensate the victims; the citizens.
Car fuel tax should be increased towards ~€10/liter (=~$40/gallon) to compensate for the huge (health, etc) damage cars create.
Roughly 40% of NL is already below sea level (my house is ~4meter below sea level). We execute a dike increase program which runs for the next ~50years. It is based on the worst scenario of the IPPC.
I like skiing & climbing, so don’t like less snow in the Alps and other mountain regions.
Can you restate your first link? It doesn’t operate. Thanks!
The Germans observed and experienced Chernobyl much stronger than we.
They prefer to avoid the risks that nuclear cripples Germany, and are moving towards 100% renewable. I agree with their choice.
More accurately, the Germans experienced the antinuclear propaganda campaign whose intensity peaked in the years immediately adjacent to Chernobyl. The accident was used to scare people; the forced population relocation was part of the effort. Another part of the campaign at that time included resistance to American/NATO efforts to locate medium range nuclear weapons in Germany. As always, forces opposed to any use of nuclear energy worked hard — successfully in this case — to tightly link the extreme hazards of nuclear war to the essentially non existent risk of public harm from a nuclear reactor accident.
I don’t agree with the inability of the German public to discern the difference between the two and I fault the government and the industry’s lack of effective defenses against the focused attacks waged by those who really, really wanted to push nuclear energy out of the commercial power market. At its base, the issue is not about safety or security; it is about making sure that people who sell coal and natural gas have plenty of demand for their products.
Those forces, however, have underestimated the public’s acceptance of the myth they created, that it is possible to achieve long term, widespread economic prosperity on a power foundation using a large portion of massive collectors of weather dependent, diffuse energy flows.
Sorry, no idea why the first link does not work.
Go to archive.org and get the 11 Jul 15 version of
This looks like a table of contents, but the KiKK part is expanded.
Search for 10.000 to find the relevant passage.
The paragraph in question states:
According to today’s knowledge in radiation biology the elevation of risk in vincinity of NPPs found in the study cannot be explained by their radioactive emissions alone. To explain the effect, the additional radiation exposure of the population would need to by approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than observed.
They go on to say that this does not disprove that there is a link, which is the same kind of argument that was used in witch hunts. Witches were made responsible for anything bad that happened in their vincinity, and the lack of a plausible mechanism for them causing the damage was of course further proof for the wickedness of their craft.
I had to put in a link from the wayback machine, because in the latest version they have removed the “approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times higher” and state instead:
According to current scientific knowledge, the resulting radiation exposure of the population alone is too low to explain the observed increase in cancer risk.
I guess these little numeric details are just too confusing for the lay reader. I mean, if you get a speeding ticket, there is hardly any difference between going “too fast” and going “too fast by a factor of 1,000 to 10,000”, right? After all, who cares about facts and numbers in this postmodern world?
Another interesting passage in both old and new versions states:
For CNS tumors, an inverse relationship was observed (increasing risk with increasing distance, for embryonic tumors, no relationship between the incidence risk an the proximity of the place of residence to an NPP was observed.
Of course, no one ever wrote about reduced childhood CNS tumor risk in the vincinity of NPP’s. Now, the quality of the KiKK study is miled better than the Scherb nonsense, but there is still a smell of p-hacking around. How many different conditions were studied? There is leukemia, CNS tumors, other solid tumors, thyroid cancer, all that in children and in adults, there is also the possibility to split up in male and female. The 5y upper age is arbitrary, as is the 5km range. With so much freedom to slice and dice the dataset, it is inevitable that you find “significant” results, even if the data is just purely random.
“no one ever wrote about reduced childhood CNS tumor risk in the vincinity of NPP’s”
No one? You just read that at a German government site…
Doesn’t support your demagogy accusation regarding German government.
The results of the KiKK study (and similar studies in other countries) are less significant (typical p<0.05) and less consistent compared to the genetic effect studies (typical p<0.002).
Which is in line with the 1958 UNSCEAR report to the UN general assembly, which states that the m/f sex ratio is a sensitive indication for the detection of increased (damage by) radiation levels.
As Rod said, the dose to the brain was actually 44 mGy, at very high dose rate.
Just 6 months ago, you were promoting studies that claimed genetic damage massive enough to lead to a change in sex ratio at birth by 8% due to immesurably small additional radiation from the HLW storage facility in Gorleben, Germany.
The doses involved can only be calculated and are much smaller than 1nSv = 0.000001mSv per year.
Have you changed your mind?
For your first remark/link read my comment to your first post.
For your second remark/link check my comments in the thread you linked.
Pro-nuclear German scientists (incl. university professor) reacted. Pubmed has a nice page which shows the subsequent discussion.
Then the state (Niedersachsen) health authorities (NLGA) organized a conference at which all opponents were invited to present with further discussions.
You find the program with all presentations in the PDF which is linked in the last paragraph at the bottom of this page.
The five opponents of Scherb etal made similar statements about the small dosage as you did. You may assume that they are capable (>100 publications in scientific journals).
But apparently not enough to convince the authorities as thereafter Scherb etal were invited to write the final report which the authorities sent to Berlin. Berlin then arranged the premature closure of Gorleben.
You can see pictures of the huge storage facility and its largely empty building at page 7 and 8 of the 2015 report.
It’s remarkable that people living within 5km from the storage facility experienced hardly any genetic damage. The max damage occurred to people living at a distance of ~20km. Similar as around NPPs.
It seems I had the last word in the thread I linked, so no need to go back there. You say it is remarkable that “max damage” occured at a distance of 20km. However, childhood leukemia was confined to within 5km. The lack of sex ratio “effect” within 10km is justified with the absurd “ionised Argon in droplets” theory.
The strongest effect (30% shift) is found in Remlingen right next to the Asse repository. The sample is tiny (770 births in 41 years) and so Scherb’s law strikes again: The smaller the sample, the bigger the effect.
Interestingly, in case of the Asse, minute tritium emissions are blamed. Now, unlike Argon, tritium would indeed be in water droplets in the right meteoroligical conditions. However, in this case, the effect is confined to remlingen (2km away) an, even including Remlingen, there is no effect in the 40km radius.
This hotchpotch of effects, where there is no relation between dose and effect, no reason for why it is sometimes near the source and sometimes far off, sometimes downwind and sometimes upwind, with no convincing relation with the temporal development of the source term, is exactly what you would expect from data mining.
The last word doesn’t imply you are right. I stop when there is no new info. So you always can have the last word.
Around the French NPP’s the Raleigh function shows a max genetic damage at a distance of 10km, etc. There is no reliability range indicated around that function. So we talk about something which intrigues me, but which is not significant, may be accidental.
Whether genetic damage of the (leaking) Asse nuclear waste storage is confined to Remlingen is unclear. It seems not statistical significant.
Anyway, different cause so you may assume different mechanism.
Same applies for childhood leukemia near NPP’s. Here accidental releases of radio-active material (steam) may play a role, as there are also indications that more damage occurred in the first decade of the NPP’s.
You can see pictures of the huge storage facility and its largely empty building at page 7 and 8 of the 2015 report.
Bas, have you noticed the jumps in gamma dose on page 15 of that report? I am sure that will lead to genetic damage and sex ratio distortion somewhere within 40km. Can’t tell you where though until the birth register figures are out.
Yes. Gorleben storage facility and its monitoring is very professional. Looking at US pictures of dry casks in free air, Gorleben seems better for people living in the surroundings.
If the story about Ar41 is correct, closing the ventilation openings and installing heat exchangers to cool the air in the building (dry casks produce heat) seems a partial solution. So ionized air (Ar41) cannot escape. No need to install airco as the temperature in the building can be allowed to be e.g. 80degrC.
Increasing the neutron absorption of the (thin) roof seems very expensive to me (roof becomes to heavy, etc). So it stays a partial solution.
Please stop spreading fantasies that you state as if they are facts.
@Bas, I must admit I was leading you on. The jumps in gamma radiation were caused by roadworks. Yes, these instruments are so sensitive that they pick up the tiny increase in gamma radiation when granite-rich gravel under a nearby road is uncovered. Once the road is re-surfaced, the shielding means the dose goes back to the previous value.
In spite of all this, the gamma dose measurements never detected an increase when wind was blowing Argon across it. And the high energy gammas that Ar-41 emits easily penetrate 200 m of atmosphere, so it would be no problem detecting it from the groun, like it was done in at the BR1 in Mol, Belgium, where the Ar-41 emissions are at least 1000 times stronger.
The gamma measurements confirm the measurements of Scherb and Hoopman’s due diligence, that genetic damage to newborn within few km of Gorleben is near zero.
There is no measurement & analysis of the damaging mechanisms. When you study the PPT of Kusmierz (=second part), then you see that the mechanisms is plausible speculation.
I assume that the main damage is caused by inhaled Ar41 which then decays while in the lung/body. The Ar41 is (or arises) in the hot air stream from the building (the dry casks generate major heat). It will come down to ground level only after attaching to water droplets and cooling.
Which explains that there is hardly any damage for people living nearby.
IMHO, they should have constructed an heat exchange in the building, so all air stays in the building. That may have prevented most of the damage.
If they then also would have added a radiation (neutron) shield to the roof, I think research would never have found significant damage.
I noticed some negative comments about my scientific article, which passed peer review by several scientists and physicians whose comments were incorporated into the final version.
I would point out that the advanced AD patient received not just one exposure, but four x-ray exposures.
Progressive improvements in the patient’s medical condition were observed after each of the first three treatments, just days after each scan. Observations were also made by other independent people.
The patient was discharged by the hospice to a mental care home. Her condition continues to improve.
A new AD patient has received his first scan on April 7th, and his mental behavior symptoms are being recorded in a diary by his wife. A qualified physician prescribed the CT scan, and that physician will be tracking the results of each treatment.
There are millions of AD patients. I think more and more of them, or their caregivers, will request this treatment. I expect that many of them will be treated by such CT scans. The results of these treatments will be apparent and publicized quite soon.
I expect we will find out soon whether this first patient was just an anecdotal case or whether she is the first of a series of medical facts.
Then you can revisit the negative comments on your article and ask the writers whether they changed their minds.
Do you have any results from the actual scan images themselves? That would be so interesting to hear about.
There have been post-mortem autopsies of old people that show significant amyloid beta plaque on/in their brains. Yet these people did not have significant evidence of AD. As the paper states, amyloid plaque is not a determinant of AD.
I would be delighted to be able to make different comments. Ecstatic even.
That will demand, to begin with, a properly designed and executed experiment that can provided a statistically meaningful finding, hopefully leveraging several lines of evidence. Then, no doubt, several more iterations of the same. Same standard of evidence we always require, nothing special.
I mean no disrespect to Atomic Insights which I love but Jerry, mate, when there is robust evidence of this type of recovery from AD using a simple treatment, no one will be learning about it from this site, know what I mean?
So plutonium containing cigarettes to prevent lung cancer is probably also on your list of things that wont-pass-muster?
My mildly radioactive heart is broken :[
Show me a statistically significant result from a well-planned experiment with a decent cohort size and I will believe in homoeopathic remedies!!!
I want this to be true and I believe it is really interesting. I take exception to the wording of the paper, as expressed.
Oncology, the field plauged by statistical significance due to the endless variations of cancer, the statistical effectiveness of the best treatments, the statistical chance of recurrence, on and on…
Such a field would be aghast, unable to process… something so deterministic as what is described here. An action taken with evident results following in 48 hours, repeated a number of times. Clearer action and response I have rarely seen demonstrated in medicine.
Advil itself is less reliable!
Why do you consider beneficial radiation treatment to be a “homeopathic remedy?”
I’ll dig up an excellent Calabrese paper that explains why hormesis should not be lumped in with homeopathy but has often been dismissed by applying that label. It’s a little like the way my follow the money efforts are dismissed as “conspiracy theories.”
Hormetic effects have nothing to do with homeopathy in the same way that vaccines have nothing to do with homeopathy.
Skepticism is appropriate. But do look at the evidence also.
We have much better evidence of the effect of CT scans on advanced AD than the evidence that presently links low radiation exposure to a risk of cancer.
As a lay person, I don’t understand the negative spin in some of the comments. Cuttler acknowledges the need for controlled studies, and, in my opinion, merely presents a case for conducting those studies. Surely the improvement this individual exhibited, seemingly as a result of the CT scans, is encouraging to anyone truly interested in improving the treatment of AD victims. Cut Cuttler some slack, he may be on to something.
This isn’t about hassling the author, nor diminishing what MAY be a fascinating finding.
I simply don’t think this is a well-written paper. I do think the conclusions and proposed next steps are altogether wrong and not remotely in keeping with the quality of the evidence presented. I don’t think this is a responsible way to approach this matter.
Speaking frankly, there are few sites I know where people tear into the quality of scientific publications as readily as this site and no-one seems to spare a though for the feelings of the author, provided the publication is saying something bad about radiation or something good about 100 % renewables.
In this case, everyone seems to want a different standard. I think that’s absolutely inappropriate. Seriously, where did the Atomic Insights people go? I miss them.
I’m not sure why you are so adamant about this particular paper.
You have expressed your professional opinion about the quality of the evidence and the way that it is presented, but apparently the reviewers and the editor of the publication where it appears have different opinions. They believe that the results are important enough to publish.
There is no claim that this is the definitive word on the topic, but it provides documentation of potentially useful observations that merit follow through with more carefully designed work. That work should be specifically designed to test the hypothesis that CT scans provide a radiation dose that is low enough so that it does not result in any measurable, short term side effects yet seems to be high enough to upregulate protective mechanisms.
The research will need to attract substantial funding that is often difficult to obtain for any treatments that involve the use of low dose radiation as a means of stimulating immune responses and cellular repair mechanisms. The radiation protection segment of the medical community grudgingly accepts the use of low dose radiation as a diagnostic tool and intense radiation as a way of destroying harmful tissues or tumors, but it seems to have a strong negative reaction to anyone suggesting that radiation itself might help cells, living tissues, and living human beings function better.
I published a story pointing to Cuttler’s peer-reviewed paper because I think the observations are far too important to disappear into the fog of grant proposals, antinuclear/antiradiation editorial staffs, and infrequently read academic journals. I happen to have recently experienced the slow death of a lady that has been very important to me for the past 35 years; if we had known about this possibility a year or more ago, we might have contacted the paper authors to volunteer to participate in that follow on research.
Yes, Atomic Insights has a well-understood agenda to tear down the barriers of radiation fear that have been purposely erected over a period that started almost exactly 60 years ago. I date the beginning of the public propaganda effort on June 13, 1956.
There is nothing wrong with enthusiastically pointing to intriguing initial case report-type results and expressing support for continued follow on efforts. I can guarantee that there will be plenty of effort put into suppressing the mere possibility that radiation is not only harmless at low doses but might offer some hope for a symptom-reducing treatment for what is otherwise a depressing, stressful and hope-destroying disease.
I tend to disagree with your stated opinion about the possibility that people will first hear about the potential for positive uses of radiation here on Atomic Insights.
The editor here (yours truly) has a 25 year history of curiously and intensely studying the basis for the skewed public perceptions of the health effects of low dose radiation. Editors for many other publications have been indoctrinated by the 60 year propaganda effort to assume that all doses of radiation, however small, carry a risk that must be avoided at almost every possible opportunity.
Chances are that I will recognize the possibilities before many others. I have the confidence in my judgement and understanding of the underlying science to publish them even if I know there will be many negative reactions.
There is a different standard for a paper that defines itself in the title modestly as “a case report.”
If this paper had pretended that it is something other than what it is, if this paper had been hyped in the media as some sort of “landmark paper” or “game-changer,” or if this paper had been written explicitly with the intention of changing public policy, then there would have been a valid reason to tear into it. Instead, this paper reports what was observed, speculates a bit, and then concludes that more research is needed.
Considering all of the crap papers that are published every year, this is hardly the worst.
We “Atomic Insights people” have better things to do than to tear down this one paper. Take it or leave it. Its real value will be judged by whether future papers are published that support its observations.
When I come to, pinch me. Brian and I actually agree on something.
The conclusions offered were in no way keeping with a case report, at which point it is indeed pretending to be something other than it is.
Gee, Ben, did you actually read the conclusions? Your comments indicate that you did not.
Let’s take a look, shall we?
“Alzheimer disease is the most common cause of dementia … “ OK.
“There are no treatments to cure or delay it.” Can’t argue with that.
“This case report provides human evidence …” Sure. There’s evidence — not overwhelming evidence, mostly anecdotal evidence, but evidence nevertheless.
“This evidence suggests a need for clinical studies …” Here’s the standard call for more research. Nothing unusual in that. Sure, let’s do more work to see whether the observations that were reported are repeatable or are just a fluke.
“Upregulation of these protective systems in aged people would reverse, stop, or delay cell and tissue damage and would prevent or cure AD.” This is speculative, but if there are protection systems in the body that help avoid Alzheimer’s, and if these systems could be stimulated by something like radiation, then such a treatment would have a prophylactic effect.
Frankly, I don’t see the problem.
Y’all better quit givin my boy Jay-Ree a hard time now!
“We have much better evidence of the effect of CT scans on advanced AD than the evidence that presently links low radiation exposure to a risk of cancer.”
Based on a case study?
Sorry, but this type of statements reduce your influence further.
Watch the true-life Will Smith movie, now on RedBox – “CONCUSSION” for a review of what the NFL did about their knowledge cover-up:
“NFL is immune to acts of God and owns Sunday” – “[Sunday], Used to be owned by the Church”
Then you will be on the right track when considering “BIG PHARMA” cartel with Federal Mafia Protection.
As usual, You supposed “experts” are manipulated by big money puppeteers – and believe your “Own MAGIC” – tech words…
The only thing you are “Expert” at is perpetuating the mind conditioning lies to protect position and money… for your controllers and your own pockets.-
apology to rod but I must respond to this muppet its long overdue.
whats the point of a “flat earther” like you commenting on anything from your cave, we are trying to advance science and technology,
to be brutally honest there is no conspiracy, no overarching plot, big business is not interested in a insect like you. your paranoia is your paranoia only.
Its sad but true, your lack of success in life if because of your uselessness and laziness get a grip have a word with yourself and grow up, there are real battles to be fought, stop fighting your own shadow. its selfish conceited childish and embarrassing.
other than that have a nice day !
PS next time don’t press the submit button
I will buy the popcorn>>>
To whom are you directing your vitriol? Do you honestly believe that “Big Pharma” would be happy to find out that a few simple, available, essentially no side effect, CT scans MIGHT obviate the need for repetitive doses of very expensive medications that have less beneficial results in treating this particular disease?
thanks for the most interesting article
as to what the mechanism is that’s for another day but the reported improvement is very interesting.
lets hope the effect can be proven and helps with this most terrible condition
The value of this research is utterly dumbfounding. How many MILLIONS of aging westerners will flock with their retirement funding in tow to alzheimer’s prevention centres? When this breaks through the barriers of medical bureaucracy the torrent will roar louder than a lion!
Feel free to come visit boston and interview Jerry directly, Rod. We would love to have you man!
I got this idea for plutonium containing cigarettes that reduce lung cancer. The ironing is delicious!!!!
I guess you meant “irony”. Your comment must not have been peer reviewed.
You know that tobacco contains polonium, don’t you?
we need more!
its a microsoft philosophy, turn a flaw into a feature!!!
Egads..I know I can be a pest at times on this site, but I sincerely hope I’m not near as obnoxious as you are, “Andrew”.
Wait, he’s not the “bad cop” to your “good cop”?
Hitting bottom [hit ing bot-uh m] v. Becoming more obnoxious than POA.
Actually, EP, to get to the bottom, ya gotta judge a man by his skin color.
Well I don’t mean to pester, gentlemen. I was hoping twas more comic than obnoxious… alas
Let’s say I have an 84 year old uncle with AD. His wife is the primary caregiver. He does not recognize family. His memory is gone. He does not speak more than a few words a day. My aunt is exhausted. What would be the downside of trying this treatment? What could she say to her doctor to get him to prescribe these CT brain scans? How many scans, 1 a month for 4 months?
Seriously, any small improvement would be a Godsend!
Roger that. I’m 81 and my abdomen has been CT scanned a half dozen times in the past year relating to a liver operation and subsequent complications. (Recovery seems to be progressing well now.)
However, I’m aware of the need for caution in approving therapy involving radiation.
There is no medical downside to trying this treatment.
Give the published paper to a doctor and ask for a prescription for a CT scan to image the AD patient’s brain. Minimum radiation dose for each scan should be 4 cGy.
A physician (patient’s family doctor?) would prescribe one CT scan. Ask for additional scans at monthly intervals only if the scan produces improvements in behavior.
Start writing a diary before the treatment and continue writing after the treatment, recording details of daily behavior.
This treatment is not an “accepted” treatment for AD yet, so the patient’s medical insurance would not cover it. The caregiver would pay the cost of each CT scan.
Who would be interested in helping setup a crowdfunding campaign for a proper follow-up study? I am wondering if any of the CT OEMs would be willing to help fund or donate equipment.
I have setup a Google group for ‘offline’ discussion and planning purposes for anyone interested: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!members/ct-alzheimer
Is anyone interested?
Recent Comments from our Readers
The Clinton Nuclear Plant also in Illinois was shutdown essentially for almost 2 years before it was taken over by…
Good Podcast – Very informative One thing that was not discussed is how to deal with a particular fear that…
Renewables people are masters in marketing. Unreliable intermittent generators whose output is all over the place, and usually badly correlated…
Looking at their lineup, Westinghouse seems bound and determined to keep Gen IV in its “place” which is apparently the…
So they are developing a scaled down version of the AP1000, which is a scaled up version of the AP600,…