1. Rod,

    I searched in the Journal of Historical Toxicology, and the same authors have also published papers about x-ray treatment of sinus infections, and pneumonia as well. It looks like there is merit for further investigation to see if there are better outcomes compared to antibiotics, and if the risks outweigh the probability of future cancer rates. (probably the benefits outweigh the risks).

    I appreciate you writing this article and bringing it more out in the open.

    Best Regards

    Jay Bryner

    1. That’s exactly it, Jay. Unfortunately some will reject such study because for them it’s just LNT denial, but it’s perfectly possible for the treatment to have both a positive immediate impact, and a negative LNT long term impact, *with the immediate benefits outweighing the risks*.

      The situation is very similar to the experiments of Dr. Kiyohiko Sakamoto for half body radiation, with the difference that in the case of Sakamoto, it should be obvious how much lowering the risk of metastasis outweighs the risks of longer term LNT induced cancer :
      After some research I found that some others have made similar experiment, but many have quickly stopped them despite encouraging early results ( see for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478704 “Half-body irradiation: a safe and acceptable treatment” and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18979285 “Half body irradiation of patients with multiple bone metastases” ).

      However it’s not a good thing either to simply ignore that several studies have indeed linked such therapeutic radiation exposure with later increased cancer rate.
      Here from Melvin Griem : http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/86/11/842.abstract “Cancer Following Radiotherapy for Peptic Ulcer”
      And here from Ron E : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2594972 “Thyroid neoplasia following low-dose radiation in childhood”

      1. @jmdesp

        I think I am finally beginning to understand that I have a completely different view of the words “significant” and “greatly” than epidemiologists – who are essentially statisticians.

        Here is an example statement from the abstract of the Griem paper:

        Radiotherapy and surgery together appear to induce carcinogenic processes that greatly enhance the development of stomach cancer. The risk of radiation-induced stomach cancer was 0.25 extra deaths per 10 000 persons per year per Gy, somewhat lower than reported in other studies.

        Read that again. Radiation induced stomach cancer was 1/4 of 1 death per 10,000 persons per year per Gy, yet the author calls that “greatly” enhanced. By the way, the study methodology used was to dig through medical records of people who were already dead.

        1. I thinking they were mostly all people with pre existing serious medical conditions as well. Especially a history of cancer. It was a very odd choice of specific words, by people that know better, for a situation that did not fit.

        2. The numbers raise two questions.

          1… How many Gy for average treatment?
          2… Does alternate treatment have greater or lesser risk?

        3. Rod,
          A heads-up on this topic.
          Page C3 of the April 12-13 Wall Street Journal has a piece by Craig Nelson entitled “A Radiation Reality Check”

          You have probably seen it, but there was nothing today in your Twitter feed about it.


  2. So, considering antibiotic-resistant bacteria, nuclear technologies and therapeutic radiotherapy/selective use of ionizing radiation might hold “world-saving” potential in terms beyond simply sufficient power supplies?

    And demonization of these technologies is considered “en vogue” by a non-insignificant proportion of our population?

    Something is grossly amiss in terms of weighing risk assessments in this day and age.

    1. It hit me a few days ago that far far more people have been helped by Radiation than harmed, even when including instances of its worse misuse. Several orders of magnitude more. Thinking of it in terms of a “necessary evil” just with respect to energy is inappropriate and wrong. It is part of what makes our reality; and a wonderful set of tools and resources.

      I think we will see a needed reboot soon when it comes to opinion and the value and importance of radiation. At least I hope it happens and look forward to the coming Version 2.0 of the Atomic Age.

  3. Rod,

    Do you know of any ongoing studies that are further trialing this method for deaf patients? What about congenital deafness – is there relevance for those patients? Or is it only used in conjunction with preventing deafness?


    Class of 2018

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts