Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. This is a very very excellently timely article, however it does not really allay the FUD of NPPs because the lay public sees “medical radiation” as apples and oranges apart from “industrial” or NPP radiation. Wish they were more logical and reasonable but that’s how it is.

    1. @Mitch

      Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the people in the medical community have been indoctrinated with the same fear of radiation as the rest of the public. They are encouraged to “Image Gently” and to be very cautious about providing a “risk versus benefits” discussion with patients who worry about radiation exposure. The ALARA principle is in full use, but the word “reasonable” actually means something.

      By the early 1960s, doctors had stopped using numerous disease and disorder treatments using moderate doses of radiation that had never proven to be harmful.

      Today, the use of radiation in medicine resides at two extremes – massive doses of directed radiation or intensely radioactive, short-lived isotopes used to destroy cancer tumors and very low doses used in imaging or isotope tracers. The tumor destroying doses sometimes have to be fractionated in order to allow the patient some recovery time; if given all at once, the effective dose for killing the tumor might end up killing the patient.

      This irrational fear results in avoidance of potentially life saving treatments with far fewer side effects than many prescribed pharmaceuticals.

      It also ends up providing a recruiting base for virulently antinuclear groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility, the group that Caldicott was instrumental in forming. (She had a falling out with PSR a number of years ago.)

  2. I have a guess that this post will end up with quite a few more comments than the whopping 3 that the posting on Forbes has.

  3. As article in today’s (July 7, 2016) Wall Street Journal brought LNT to mind. Page B1, “Cellphone-Safety Debate Heats Up” includes: “Last month, the National Toxicology Program released partial results from a $25 million study on rodents that found an association between RF radiation and cancer.”
    What if LNT were applied to RF radiation?

  4. Rod Adams wrote:
    Virtually all of the above treatments, despite their documented effectiveness, were gradually abandoned after physicians were thoroughly indoctrinated by the assertion that all doses of radiation, no matter how tiny, carried a risk of eventually causing a genetic mutation. The mutation might be hereditary or it might manifest itself as a diseased cell with unrestrained growth characteristics.

    For those with Alzheimer’s disease, the “problem” of a mutation causing a hereditary disease is a non-issue, as these people are almost all beyond of age of having children. This would also apply to older people suffering from any other disease that could benefit from radiation therapy.

    I have always thought the mutation issue to be a red herring. If indeed it were a problem, the accumulated genetic damage from natural radiation to all forms of life over thousands (and millions) of years would have caused life to disappear long before any advanced forms evolved.

    Even if there is risk of cancer from this sort of radiation therapy, it has to be balanced against benefit. Immunosuppressive drugs (e.g., prednisone) are commonly prescribed, and are known to carry a cancer risk.

  5. From the wikipedia link:

    “A case report is generally considered a type of anecdotal evidence.[2] Given their intrinsic methodological limitations, including lack of statistical sampling, case reports are placed at the foot of the hierarchy of clinical evidence, together with case series.[3]”

    That is certainly the case here – full of anecdotes, light on data, and likely biased by personal involvement and wishful thinking (understandably).

    Jarringly absent from blog summary:

    “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.”

    A logical person might wonder why it has taken so long for someone to attempt to use a CT scanner as a way to stimulate a diseased brain to recover some of its functionality.

    A logical person would observe CT scans are used routinely for AD diagnosis, and conclude significant improvements had not been routinely observed.

    Most people alive today are unaware of the history of using radiation for its curative properties.

    As if you know what most people alive are aware of.

    Virtually all of the above treatments, despite their documented effectiveness, were gradually abandoned after physicians were thoroughly indoctrinated by the assertion that all doses of radiation,

    How many practicing physicians have you interviewed to conclude anything about their “indoctrination?”

    Many other ineffective patent medicine treatments have also been abandoned over those years. Has it occurred to you that doctors may be at least as smart as Military Academy grad’s, who went through their own unique indoctrination?

    For a reason whose logic eludes me, most physicians and medical researchers operate under the assumption that the process of devising a treatment regime using x-ray machines or radioactive isotopes would be considered to be unethical experimentation on human beings.

    What basis do you have for saying “most” doctors? They certainly have little hesitation to use these technologies where they find them useful. Perhaps you could interview some more impartial, practicing experts and provide accurate information on their logic?

    There have been dozens of cycles

    Life and the world does not naturally operate in nice, quasi-steady-state, “sustainable” fashion.

    governed by the love of money.

    You thought gravity makes the world go ’round? The CT Scan treatment for AD already involved a patent. Patents are for capturing profits. Let’s be equally skeptical about this.

    As welcome as that prospect is for most of us, it has a huge potential for disrupting the current world order.

    Many technologies have changed lives, but none have disrupted the world order. There is no reason to think nuclear power would be any different. It does make a rallying cry though.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts