(NaturalNews) A Missouri hospital has admitted that it subjected 76 patients to 50 percent overdoses of brain radiation because a medical device had been programmed improperly.
According to the administration of CoxHealth in Springfield, a stereotactic radiation therapy device was programmed improperly after the hospital first installed it in 2004, even with an employee of the manufacturer supervising. For the next five years, every patient using the machine was exposed to 50 percent overdose. The error was only discovered in September 2009, when a new technician was being trained. A similar case occurred at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., in 2004 and 2005.
The hospital has suspended its stereotactic imaging program indefinitely for a full program audit.
The news comes on the heels of a scandal in which hundreds of patients in California and Alabama received as much as eight times the intended dose of chest radiation, and a new FDA initiative to reduce excess radiation from CT scans, nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopies.
Robert H. Bezanson, president of CoxHealth, issued an open letter calling on the FDA to go farther.
"The initiative should be broadened to include regulation of medical radiation therapy as well," he wrote. "We have also learned that the incident here at CoxHealth is, unfortunately, not an isolated occurrence. Rather, similar instances of medical overradiation have occurred at other hospitals throughout the country. Without increased regulation and oversight, these instances of medical overradiation will likely continue."
Stereotactic radiation therapy employs ultra-high radiation doses to treat very small, localized brain tumors. Because the radiation dose is so high, only one treatment is normally needed.
Health professionals and the radiation imaging industry have increasingly raised concerns that many radiation devices are not calibrated or used properly, exposing patients to dangerous, higher-than-necessary doses. In many ways, they say, advances in imaging technology have outpaced doctors' ability to keep up.
Sources for this story include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/u....
Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
FDA cracking down on excess radiation from medical imaging devices
(NaturalNews) The FDA has announced a plan to reduce patients' unnecessary exposure to radiation from three different medical imaging tests. The three-pronged strategy will focus on increasing the safety of the devices, increasing patient awareness of risks, and improving the ability of patients and doctors to make informed decisions.
The tests in question are computed tomography (CT) scans, nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopy. CT scans produce three-dimensional images of different areas of the body, nuclear medicine studies involve consumption of a radioactive substance to observe its motion through the body, and fluoroscopy uses a continuous beam of radiation to produce a real-time, moving image.
"The FDA continues to support a strong dialogue between patients and physicians over the medical necessity and risk associated with these types of imaging studies," the agency said. "However, like all medical procedures, CT, nuclear medicine, and fluoroscopy pose risks."
The FDA chose to focus on the three procedures because together they provide the single greatest source of radiation exposure for the U.S. population. CT scans, nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopy all deliver much higher doses than other radioactive imaging procedures, such as mammography or X-rays. For example, a single CT abdomen scan uses as much radiation as 400 chest X-rays or 800 dental X-rays.
Yet in spite of the risks, which according to the FDA include cancer, cataracts and burns, the use of radioactive imaging tests has become much more common in the United States in recent years.
"The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years," said Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
The FDA plans to reduce unnecessary exposure by encouraging "appropriate justification" of all radiation tests, as well as "optimization of the radiation dose."
"Working together," said Shuren, "the FDA and other organizations hope to help patients get the right imaging exam, at the right time, with the right radiation dose."
Under the first prong of its three-prong strategy, the FDA seeks to encourage safer use of the three techniques. Toward this goal, it plans to require manufacturers of radiation imaging devices to implement specific safeguards in the machines and implement standardized training for all device operators. The specific requirements to be established have yet to be determined, but might include making all devices display, record and report radiation doses and other relevant settings; having devices issue alerts when a higher-than-normal dose is entered; and making devices immediately add information about each test to a patient's permanent medical record and a national dose registry.
The FDA is also working with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to impose new accreditation requirements on all facilities that perform radioactive imaging, with the goal of improving oversight and safe device use.
In order to improve patient awareness, the FDA is working with a number of other organizations to design a patient medical imaging history card, which would record every radiation test undergone by a specific patient in a fashion similar to an immunization card. This card (which will also be available via the FDA web site) could then be presented to physicians to inform them about the patient's prior lifetime radiation exposure.
In service of the final goal, informed consent, the FDA is encouraging the development of a national radiation dose registry so that researchers can monitor nationwide radiation exposure and help produce more targeted recommendations on when the risk of a procedure outweighs its benefits.
"Health care decisions made by patients and their physicians should include discussions of the medical need and associated risks for each procedure," the agency said.
Sources for this story include: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/Pre... www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/health/p....
The tests in question are computed tomography (CT) scans, nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopy. CT scans produce three-dimensional images of different areas of the body, nuclear medicine studies involve consumption of a radioactive substance to observe its motion through the body, and fluoroscopy uses a continuous beam of radiation to produce a real-time, moving image.
"The FDA continues to support a strong dialogue between patients and physicians over the medical necessity and risk associated with these types of imaging studies," the agency said. "However, like all medical procedures, CT, nuclear medicine, and fluoroscopy pose risks."
The FDA chose to focus on the three procedures because together they provide the single greatest source of radiation exposure for the U.S. population. CT scans, nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopy all deliver much higher doses than other radioactive imaging procedures, such as mammography or X-rays. For example, a single CT abdomen scan uses as much radiation as 400 chest X-rays or 800 dental X-rays.
Yet in spite of the risks, which according to the FDA include cancer, cataracts and burns, the use of radioactive imaging tests has become much more common in the United States in recent years.
"The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years," said Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
The FDA plans to reduce unnecessary exposure by encouraging "appropriate justification" of all radiation tests, as well as "optimization of the radiation dose."
"Working together," said Shuren, "the FDA and other organizations hope to help patients get the right imaging exam, at the right time, with the right radiation dose."
Under the first prong of its three-prong strategy, the FDA seeks to encourage safer use of the three techniques. Toward this goal, it plans to require manufacturers of radiation imaging devices to implement specific safeguards in the machines and implement standardized training for all device operators. The specific requirements to be established have yet to be determined, but might include making all devices display, record and report radiation doses and other relevant settings; having devices issue alerts when a higher-than-normal dose is entered; and making devices immediately add information about each test to a patient's permanent medical record and a national dose registry.
The FDA is also working with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to impose new accreditation requirements on all facilities that perform radioactive imaging, with the goal of improving oversight and safe device use.
In order to improve patient awareness, the FDA is working with a number of other organizations to design a patient medical imaging history card, which would record every radiation test undergone by a specific patient in a fashion similar to an immunization card. This card (which will also be available via the FDA web site) could then be presented to physicians to inform them about the patient's prior lifetime radiation exposure.
In service of the final goal, informed consent, the FDA is encouraging the development of a national radiation dose registry so that researchers can monitor nationwide radiation exposure and help produce more targeted recommendations on when the risk of a procedure outweighs its benefits.
"Health care decisions made by patients and their physicians should include discussions of the medical need and associated risks for each procedure," the agency said.
Sources for this story include: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/Pre... www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/health/p....
Friday, June 18, 2010
Childhood cancer survivors have 10 times greater risk of heart disease (because radiation damages the heart!)
(NaturalNews) Survivors of childhood cancers are nearly 10 times more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease as adults than people who did not have cancer as children, according to a study conducted by researchers from Emory University and published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
Researchers remain unsure of the exact reason for the increased risk, but the effects of radiation therapy appear to play a significant role.
"Mechanistically, we are not yet sure why this is, but the association is definitely there," said researcher Lillian R. Meacham.
Using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, researchers compared data from 8,599 cancer survivors with data from 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings.
They found that cancer survivors had a 60 percent higher chance of being on cholesterol medicine, a 70 percent higher chance of suffering from diabetes and nearly a 100 percent higher chance of being on blood pressure drugs. They were no more likely that their siblings to suffer from obesity, however, suggesting that something more than lifestyle factors are at play.
"These risk factors are manifesting at about age 32, which is much younger than a non-cancer survivor would exhibit signs of cardiovascular risk factors," Meacham said. "Some have suggested that when you are a cancer survivor there are parts of you that wear out early, so we need to be vigilant about our follow-up of these patients in order to find these late effects early and intervene."
Physical activity increased a cancer survivor's risk of suffering more than one symptom by 70 percent compared with cancer free siblings. Being older when the study was conducted increased survivor's risk by 8.2 times compared with their siblings.
Radiation therapy was also strongly associated with cardiovascular risk, with those who had undergone chest and abdomen radiation suffering from 2.2 times the risk of cardiovascular risk factor clustering as those who had not undergone the therapy. Total-body radiation increased the risk by 5.5 times.
Sources for this story include: www.businessweek.com; www.sciencedaily.com; www.telegraph.co.uk.
Researchers remain unsure of the exact reason for the increased risk, but the effects of radiation therapy appear to play a significant role.
"Mechanistically, we are not yet sure why this is, but the association is definitely there," said researcher Lillian R. Meacham.
Using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, researchers compared data from 8,599 cancer survivors with data from 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings.
They found that cancer survivors had a 60 percent higher chance of being on cholesterol medicine, a 70 percent higher chance of suffering from diabetes and nearly a 100 percent higher chance of being on blood pressure drugs. They were no more likely that their siblings to suffer from obesity, however, suggesting that something more than lifestyle factors are at play.
"These risk factors are manifesting at about age 32, which is much younger than a non-cancer survivor would exhibit signs of cardiovascular risk factors," Meacham said. "Some have suggested that when you are a cancer survivor there are parts of you that wear out early, so we need to be vigilant about our follow-up of these patients in order to find these late effects early and intervene."
Physical activity increased a cancer survivor's risk of suffering more than one symptom by 70 percent compared with cancer free siblings. Being older when the study was conducted increased survivor's risk by 8.2 times compared with their siblings.
Radiation therapy was also strongly associated with cardiovascular risk, with those who had undergone chest and abdomen radiation suffering from 2.2 times the risk of cardiovascular risk factor clustering as those who had not undergone the therapy. Total-body radiation increased the risk by 5.5 times.
Sources for this story include: www.businessweek.com; www.sciencedaily.com; www.telegraph.co.uk.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Study shows how radiation causes breast cancer
(NaturalNews) It's well-established that exposure to ionizing radiation can trigger mutations and other genetic damage and cause normal cells to become malignant. So it seems amazing how mainstream medicine frequently dismisses the idea that medical imaging tests from mammograms to CT scans could play much of a role in causing breast cancer. Take this example from the web site for Cornell University's Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors:
In answer to the question "Is ionizing radiation a cause of breast cancer?", the Cornell experts say "Yes" and note ".. female breast tissue is highly susceptible to radiation effects." But then they pooh-pooh the possible hazard from mammography x-rays saying the risk …"should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures."
If that's not confusing enough, they turn around and state: "Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks."
The reason is that signals from a cell's microenvironment, altered by radiation exposure, can cause a cell's phenotype (made up of all its biochemical and physical characteristics) to change by regulating or de-regulating the way a cell uses its genes. The result can be a cell that not only becomes pre-cancerous but that passes this pre-malignant condition on to future cells.
"Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous," Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab's Life Sciences Division, said in a statement to the press.
"Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment," he added.
For their study, Yaswen and his research teams used human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs), the cells that line breast ducts, where most breast cancers start. When placed in a culture dish, the vast majority of HMECs display a phenotype that allows them to divide between five and 20 times until they become what is known as senescent, or unable to divide. However, there are also some variants of these cells which have a phenotype that allows them to continue dividing for many weeks in culture. Known as a vHMEC phenotype, this type of breast cell arises spontaneously and is more susceptible to malignancy because it lacks a tumor-suppressing protein dubbed p16.
To find out what radiation exposure does to the cellular environment and how it could impact the future of cell behavior, the Berkeley Lab scientists grew sets of HMECs from normal breast tissue in culture dishes for about a week. Then they zapped each set with a single treatment of a low-to-moderate dose of radiation and compared the irradiated cells to sets of breast cells that had not been irradiated.
The results, just published in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research, showed that four to six weeks after the radiation exposure, the normal breast cancer cells had stopped dividing far earlier than they would have normally -- and this premature cell senescence had accelerated the outgrowth of vHMECS.
"However, by getting normal cells to prematurely age and stop dividing, the radiation exposure created space for epigenetically altered cells that would otherwise have been filled by normal cells. In other words, the radiation promoted the growth of pre-cancerous cells by making the environment that surrounded the cells more hospitable to their continued growth," Yaswen explained in the press statement.
The researchers pointed out that the levels of radiation used in their experiments were not as much as a woman would be exposed to during a single routine mammogram but were comparable to those a woman could receive during a CT scans or radiotherapy "and could represent sources of concern."
Of course, women are often pushed to get annual mammograms, raising their overall radiation exposure through the years. And, as NaturalNews has reported, previous research has already provided compelling evidence linking mammography to breast cancer.
For example, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). And a Johns Hopkins study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded radiation exposure from mammograms could trigger malignancies in women at risk for genetic breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_c...).
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/fac...
In answer to the question "Is ionizing radiation a cause of breast cancer?", the Cornell experts say "Yes" and note ".. female breast tissue is highly susceptible to radiation effects." But then they pooh-pooh the possible hazard from mammography x-rays saying the risk …"should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures."
If that's not confusing enough, they turn around and state: "Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks."
Why radiation causes breast cancer
Common sense suggests there is plenty of reason to be worried about radiation causing breast cancer. And now there's a new reason to be concerned. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have discovered that radiation exposure can alter cells' microenvironment (the environment surrounding cells). And that greatly raises the odds future cells will become cancerous.The reason is that signals from a cell's microenvironment, altered by radiation exposure, can cause a cell's phenotype (made up of all its biochemical and physical characteristics) to change by regulating or de-regulating the way a cell uses its genes. The result can be a cell that not only becomes pre-cancerous but that passes this pre-malignant condition on to future cells.
"Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous," Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab's Life Sciences Division, said in a statement to the press.
"Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment," he added.
For their study, Yaswen and his research teams used human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs), the cells that line breast ducts, where most breast cancers start. When placed in a culture dish, the vast majority of HMECs display a phenotype that allows them to divide between five and 20 times until they become what is known as senescent, or unable to divide. However, there are also some variants of these cells which have a phenotype that allows them to continue dividing for many weeks in culture. Known as a vHMEC phenotype, this type of breast cell arises spontaneously and is more susceptible to malignancy because it lacks a tumor-suppressing protein dubbed p16.
To find out what radiation exposure does to the cellular environment and how it could impact the future of cell behavior, the Berkeley Lab scientists grew sets of HMECs from normal breast tissue in culture dishes for about a week. Then they zapped each set with a single treatment of a low-to-moderate dose of radiation and compared the irradiated cells to sets of breast cells that had not been irradiated.
The results, just published in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research, showed that four to six weeks after the radiation exposure, the normal breast cancer cells had stopped dividing far earlier than they would have normally -- and this premature cell senescence had accelerated the outgrowth of vHMECS.
"However, by getting normal cells to prematurely age and stop dividing, the radiation exposure created space for epigenetically altered cells that would otherwise have been filled by normal cells. In other words, the radiation promoted the growth of pre-cancerous cells by making the environment that surrounded the cells more hospitable to their continued growth," Yaswen explained in the press statement.
The researchers pointed out that the levels of radiation used in their experiments were not as much as a woman would be exposed to during a single routine mammogram but were comparable to those a woman could receive during a CT scans or radiotherapy "and could represent sources of concern."
Of course, women are often pushed to get annual mammograms, raising their overall radiation exposure through the years. And, as NaturalNews has reported, previous research has already provided compelling evidence linking mammography to breast cancer.
For example, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). And a Johns Hopkins study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded radiation exposure from mammograms could trigger malignancies in women at risk for genetic breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_c...).
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/fac...
Friday, February 26, 2010
Oops! Brain cancer patients over-irradiated with miscalibrated radiotherapy machines
(NaturalNews) One of the advantages of natural medicine is that if you make a mistake on your dosage, it's usually no big deal because natural medicine is inherently safe. But conventional medicine, with all its toxic chemotherapy poisons and irradiation machines, can be fatal even when simple mistakes are made. Numerous patients have already been killed by miscalibrated chemotherapy pumps that drip poison in to the bodies of patients. And now there's news from Springfield Missouri where an actively-used brain cancer irradiation machine has been miscalibratedsince 2004.
Oops. Gee, didn't anyone wonder why the burn marks were so severe and patients were losing brain function so rapidly?
Oh, wait. I forgot: Nobody noticed because losing cognitive function is a "normal" side effect of conventional cancer treatments. Harming patients in the cancer industry is now so routine that nobody even notices it anymore!
Nobody bothered to check the machine
The facts of this case are a bit frightening because this could happen anywhere, in any hospital: For the last five years, patients undergoing brain irradiation treatments have been over-exposed to very high levels of radiation. The radiation machine at the CoxHealth hospital in Springfield, Missouri was apparently never calibrated correctly. The incompetent technicians who set up the machine (who probably lost their own brain function as a result of being around so many miscalibrated radiation machines) apparently never bothered to configure it correctly. They just used the default setting the machine came with, which happened to be the "Fry my brain" setting.Now here's the really scary part: The massive radiation overdose problem was only discovered when the hospital trained a new physician on the machine. They were apparently going over all the settings and functions of the machine when the new doctor asked something like, "Hey, why is this dosage knob turned all the way up to 'Hiroshima'?"
Hospital administrators scratched their heads (after which clumps of hair fell out) and then began to realize something was wrong. "This might explain all the severe radiation burns on patients skulls..."
Oops.
So what, exactly, do you do in a case like this? Do you call all the brain cancer patients who suffered radiation burns and a loss of cognitive function and say, "Um, we're really sorry that we fried your brain because we were too stupid to configure the radiation machine correctly..."
Or do you just hope no one notices because cancer patients are too frightened to know the difference between "treatment" and a radiological assault?
I have a solution to this problem
This accidental irradiation overdose issue is a huge problem all across the country. Radiation machines are often miscalibrated, and there's virtually no oversight by anyone. Hospitals can openly operate miscalibrated machines for years on end without anyone doing a single thing to stop them.But I have a simple, highly-effective solution to this problem: Just require cancer doctors to irradiate their own brainsusing the machines before treating patients. If such a rule were enforced, I'll bet you that all of a sudden those machines would be correctly calibrated.
Naturopathic physicians, by the way, aren't afraid to take the same medicine they're about to prescribe to patients. You need these anti-viral herbs? I'll take some too just to show you how safe they are, see? No big deal.
But conventional cancer doctors would never inject themselves with chemotherapy or stick their heads under an operating radiotherapy machine. You know why? Because those treatments are dangerous! That's why they're reserved solely for patients. Only the patients get poisoned and irradiated.
Why do you think radiology technicians flee the room before they fire up their machines on patients? They flee the room because they don't want to be anywhere near that radiation!
Cancer doctors aren't very bright about curing cancer, but they are smart enough to figure out that radiation = cancer. Which makes it all the more hilarious that they use radiation to treat cancer, huh?
Apparently, radiation is good for YOU, but dangerous for THEM. It's a strange double standard...
How you can tell if radiation machines are dangerous
For those reading this who are still wishing to submit to radiation treatments for tumors, this commonsense question may have occurred to you: How can you tell if the machine is dangerous?The answer is simpler than you think: If it's ON!
There is no such thing as a "safe" irradiation machine. Even if the setting is the "normal" dose for radiation, it's still extremely dangerous. This is obvious by the fact that the whole point of the machine is to emit so much radiation that it kills cells in your body. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't just kill the cancer tumor cells; it also irradiates all the healthy cells in the path of the radiation, which is of course a straight line penetrating your skull (or other part of your body).
The only safe radiation machine is a non-functioning radiation machine.
And technically, even that's not true. Here's why...
Radioactive waste
Hospitals are a major source of radioactive waste. It's one of the dirty little secrets of the sick care industry: All these machines that emit radiation contain radioactive elements, of course. And when these machines are replaced or disposed of, their radioactive elements become radioactive waste.The disposal of this waste is supposed to be highly regulated, but it isn't as tightly controlled as you might imagine. In fact, a properly motivated terrorist could easily acquire some old hospital imaging equipment that still contains "hot" radioactive elements. (They can also get this from discarded dental X-ray equipment...)
Once you have these radioactive elements, it's a simple matter to build a so-called "dirty bomb." All you do is attach the radioactive core of the imaging equipment to some conventional explosives that can blast the core into dust, giving you airborne radioactive dust. Then you detonate that in an area with maximum population density, air flow or water flow to a populated area. It's no exaggeration to say that medical imaging equipment provides the raw materials for terrorists to quite easily bomb U.S. cities or water supplies in a radiological attack.
Isn't medicine bizarre? Not only do the "treatments" expose you to excess radiation, but the equipment used in hospitals is also a source of raw materials for weapons of mass destruction. Remember all those WMDs that were supposed to be in Iraq? They were never found because they're sitting in American hospitals disguised as radiotherapy machines and currently being targeted on American citizens. They actually draw a target on your skull when they fire these machines at you, by the way. How obvious can it get?
Whatever cancer you might have, I can guarantee you that your body is not deficient in radiation.
Irradiating your skull to treat cancer makes about as much sense as injecting poison into your veins to treat cancer (chemotherapy). It's one of the most misguided ideas to have ever been floated by the sick care industry -- an industry that still offers absolutely no solutions for curing cancer.
And yet, curing cancer is simple. Your body already knows how to do it. In the world of natural medicine, cancer is one of the most straightforward "diseases" to reverse if patients are willing to clean up their diets and embrace a healing lifestyle.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Cancers can re-seed themselves after chemo, surgery or radiation
(NaturalNews) Researchers from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York have published findings in the journal Cell that explain how tumor cells can re-seed and spread throughout the body after they have been removed through conventional chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation treatments. Tiny tumor cells that circulate throughout the body often begin to send out seeds to the places where the tumor originated, essentially planting the cancer back into the body.
Joan Massague and her colleagues at the Center are finding that conventional treatments leave behind malignant cells that relocate to other areas of the body to avoid being destroyed. Eventually they return as stronger and more aggressive tumors, having gathered back the worst leftover cells from the previous cancer. The result is a second cancer that is worse than the first.
Chemicals present in the immune system also appear to signal tumor cells in circulation to return to their source. Following conventional treatment, the immune system actually works against the body by drawing the vagrant cancer cells back to where they originally seeded, kick starting a relapse.
Medical professionals typically attribute recurrences of cancer following conventional treatment to a few remaining cells that survived treatment and remained at the source. However this study illustrates definitively that lingering cells hide throughout the body and later return to self seed back where they originally started.
What these findings illustrate is that conventional cancer treatments are not effective at eradicating cancer from the body. The targeting of a specific area with surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy cannot successfully remove the cancer from the body because its cells will find another place to live temporarily, only to return even stronger the next time.
Biopsies cause cancer to spread
A conventional biopsy is usually recommended as the best way to identify the presence of cancer, both before and after treatments. Needle biopsies involve taking tissue samples at various places in order to identify the presence of cancer cells. Official diagnosis of cancer cannot take place without a biopsy, resulting in the pressuring of patients to get one if they suspect a tumor.
Many doctors will insist that a person needs a biopsy, but the threat of spreading cancer far outweighs any perceived benefits. Those who receive biopsies will most likely experience unnecessary cancer spread and, following conventional treatment, will probably experience cancer reseeding. Cancer is known to develop at the puncture sites of biopsies.
Chemotherapy leads to reseeding
Chemotherapy treatments involve targeting cancer cells that are rapidly dividing and spreading with harsh chemicals designed to kill them. While treatment may kill the primary tumor, it fails to eradicate the cells that divide more slowly, resulting in a continued replication of cancer cells following treatment.
Many who believe they are in remission following their chemotherapy treatments later discover that their cancer has returned. Not only do they undergo the horrors of the treatment which leaves their body and health in shambles, but they often end up with a more severe version of their original cancer.
Conventional therapies are a failure
Conventional medicine is at a loss for how to deal with the problem of reseeding. Within their paradigm, chemotherapy, radiation, drugs, and surgery are the only options for treating someone with cancer. Now that these are proving to be largely ineffective, scientists are searching for yet another new drug to combat the tendency of cancers to re-seed in order to continue promoting these accepted forms of cancer treatment. They are even investigating the possibility of developing vaccines that will allegedly use the body's immune system to stop vagrant cancer cells.
The problem with drugs, surgery, and radiation is that they will never be able to systematically rid the body of the problem because they are only capable of targeting a confined area. These methods are also wrought with negative side effects so severe that many people end up dying simply from the treatment.
Conventional treatment is also extremely expensive, heavily burdening an already overwhelmed health care system. It is simply assumed that there are no alternative methods by which cancer can be treated, let alone prevented.
Many recently published studies have found that pomegranates, mangoes, and other natural foods contain valuable phytonutrients that effectively prevent and stop malignant cancer cells while preserving good cells. These nutrients holistically rid the body of harmful cells, targeting them wherever they hide in the body and eliminating them.
Conventional medicine would do best to begin focusing heavily on the compounds found in nature that are designed to deter cancer without inflicting negative side effects as an alternative to the mainstream methods that are only making the problem worse. Whether in aloe vera, peach pits, raw almonds, or the many fruits and vegetables found around the world, anti-cancer nutrients are everywhere and modern medicine is only beginning to recognize them. They may not result in the next big blockbuster drug but they work and they are inexpensive. Perhaps this is the reason they are generally marginalized and looked down upon by the cancer industry.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news...http://www.healingcancernaturally.c...
Joan Massague and her colleagues at the Center are finding that conventional treatments leave behind malignant cells that relocate to other areas of the body to avoid being destroyed. Eventually they return as stronger and more aggressive tumors, having gathered back the worst leftover cells from the previous cancer. The result is a second cancer that is worse than the first.
Chemicals present in the immune system also appear to signal tumor cells in circulation to return to their source. Following conventional treatment, the immune system actually works against the body by drawing the vagrant cancer cells back to where they originally seeded, kick starting a relapse.
Medical professionals typically attribute recurrences of cancer following conventional treatment to a few remaining cells that survived treatment and remained at the source. However this study illustrates definitively that lingering cells hide throughout the body and later return to self seed back where they originally started.
What these findings illustrate is that conventional cancer treatments are not effective at eradicating cancer from the body. The targeting of a specific area with surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy cannot successfully remove the cancer from the body because its cells will find another place to live temporarily, only to return even stronger the next time.
Biopsies cause cancer to spread
A conventional biopsy is usually recommended as the best way to identify the presence of cancer, both before and after treatments. Needle biopsies involve taking tissue samples at various places in order to identify the presence of cancer cells. Official diagnosis of cancer cannot take place without a biopsy, resulting in the pressuring of patients to get one if they suspect a tumor.
Many doctors will insist that a person needs a biopsy, but the threat of spreading cancer far outweighs any perceived benefits. Those who receive biopsies will most likely experience unnecessary cancer spread and, following conventional treatment, will probably experience cancer reseeding. Cancer is known to develop at the puncture sites of biopsies.
Chemotherapy leads to reseeding
Chemotherapy treatments involve targeting cancer cells that are rapidly dividing and spreading with harsh chemicals designed to kill them. While treatment may kill the primary tumor, it fails to eradicate the cells that divide more slowly, resulting in a continued replication of cancer cells following treatment.
Many who believe they are in remission following their chemotherapy treatments later discover that their cancer has returned. Not only do they undergo the horrors of the treatment which leaves their body and health in shambles, but they often end up with a more severe version of their original cancer.
Conventional therapies are a failure
Conventional medicine is at a loss for how to deal with the problem of reseeding. Within their paradigm, chemotherapy, radiation, drugs, and surgery are the only options for treating someone with cancer. Now that these are proving to be largely ineffective, scientists are searching for yet another new drug to combat the tendency of cancers to re-seed in order to continue promoting these accepted forms of cancer treatment. They are even investigating the possibility of developing vaccines that will allegedly use the body's immune system to stop vagrant cancer cells.
The problem with drugs, surgery, and radiation is that they will never be able to systematically rid the body of the problem because they are only capable of targeting a confined area. These methods are also wrought with negative side effects so severe that many people end up dying simply from the treatment.
Conventional treatment is also extremely expensive, heavily burdening an already overwhelmed health care system. It is simply assumed that there are no alternative methods by which cancer can be treated, let alone prevented.
Many recently published studies have found that pomegranates, mangoes, and other natural foods contain valuable phytonutrients that effectively prevent and stop malignant cancer cells while preserving good cells. These nutrients holistically rid the body of harmful cells, targeting them wherever they hide in the body and eliminating them.
Conventional medicine would do best to begin focusing heavily on the compounds found in nature that are designed to deter cancer without inflicting negative side effects as an alternative to the mainstream methods that are only making the problem worse. Whether in aloe vera, peach pits, raw almonds, or the many fruits and vegetables found around the world, anti-cancer nutrients are everywhere and modern medicine is only beginning to recognize them. They may not result in the next big blockbuster drug but they work and they are inexpensive. Perhaps this is the reason they are generally marginalized and looked down upon by the cancer industry.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news...http://www.healingcancernaturally.c...
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
FINALLY: NIH takes a step to track radiation exposure from medical tests
(NaturalNews) Many Americans are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation (http://www.naturalnews.com/025767_R...) over their lifetimes, thanks to the medical industry's determination to push radiation imaging techniques like mammography and CT scans on the healthy as well as the ill. In fact, over the past three decades, Americans' exposure to radiation through common medical tests has soared six-fold. But although it is a well-known scientific fact that radiation exposure, which is cumulative, increases the risk of cancer, government scientists have failed to warn the public about the dangers of repeated tests involving radiation, claiming the specific risk level is unknown.
Now, finally, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center have decided radiation dose exposure reports should be included in patients' electronic medical records. According to an article in the February issue of theJournal of the American College of Radiology (JACR), the NIH researchers hope this effort will result in an eventual accurate assessment of cancer associated with low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging tests.
"The cancer risk from low-dose medical radiation tests is largely unknown. Yet it is clear that the U.S. population is increasingly being exposed to more diagnostic-test-derived ionizing radiation than in the past," David A. Bluemke, MD, lead author of the article and director of Radiology and Imaging Sciences at the NIH Clinical Center, said in a statement to the press. "One widely publicized appraisal of medical radiation exposure suggested that about 1.5 to 2 percent of all cancers in the USA might be caused by the clinical use of CT alone."
A new radiation reporting policy
To attempt to document the amount of radiation exposure patients receive from medical tests, the radiology and nuclear medicine experts at the NIH Clinical Center have come up with a radiation reporting policy that involves the major radiation equipment vendors, starting with keeping track of exposures from CT and PET/CT scans. "All vendors who sell imaging equipment to Radiology and Imaging Sciences at the NIH Clinical Center will be required to provide a routine means for radiation dose exposure to be recorded in the electronic medical record. This requirement will allow cataloging of radiation exposures from these medical tests," said Dr. Bluemke. In addition, the NIH will now require that vendors make sure that radiation exposure can be tracked by patients in their own personal health records.Dr. Bluemke added that this approach is consistent with the American College of Radiology's and Radiological Society of North America's official stance that "patients should keep a record of their X-ray history". You read that correctly.Patients themselves are currently supposed to keep up with how much radiation they've been bombarded with, according to the radiology industry.
What's more, the NIH's new pronouncement that requires radiation testing vendors to keep track of how much radiation they expose patients to only applies to people receiving screening or testing through the NIH. "We encourage all medical imaging facilities to include similar requirements for radiation-dose-reporting outputs from the manufacturers of radiation-producing medical equipment," Dr. Bluemke said.
So the new NIH policy does not mean other medical centers and hospitals that use medical imaging are now required to keep records of how much radiation they are zapping patients with -- the government is only encouraging these facilities to follow through on this recommendation. Bottom line: the only real protection from excessive medical radiation is for people to take control of their own health, to ask questions of any doctor who wants to order these tests, and to avoid any and all unnecessary radiation imaging testing.
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/radiatio...
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1...)00362-7/ tests
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Radiation Treatment for Cancer Causes Diabetes in Children
(NaturalNews) People who are undergo radiation therapy for childhood cancers are significantly more likely to develop diabetes as adults, according to a new study conducted by researchers from Emory University and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
A number of studies have found that radiation, chemotherapy, and other such treatments significantly shorten the lives of childhood cancer survivors.
"As a result of their curative therapies, childhood cancer survivors face an increased risk of morbidity and mortality," the researchers wrote. Nearly 75 percent of such children develop a chronic health condition within 30 years of diagnosis, while 42.4 percent develop severe, disabling or life-threatening health conditions. Because cardiovascular disease is a major killer of childhood cancer survivors, the researchers examined the effect of radiation treatment on the risk of diabetes, a major correlate of cardiovascular mortality.
The researchers examined diabetes rates in 8,599 people who had been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 21, between 1970 and 1986. These rates were compared with 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings, who were randomly selected. All participants were screened for diabetes in 2003.
After adjusting for other diabetes risk factors including age, body mass index, ethnicity, exercise, income, insurance and race, the researchers found that those who had undergone cancer treatment as children were 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as adults than their siblings were. Those who had been treated with abdominal radiation were 2.7 times more likely to have diabetes, while those who had been treated with whole-body radiation were a shocking 7.2 times more likely to be diabetic.
Risk increased with radiation dose used, and decreased with age at diagnosis. People diagnosed with cancer before the age of five had 2.4 times the diabetes risk as those diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 20.
A previous study found that childhood cancer survivors were five to 10 times more likely to suffer from heart disease than their cancer-free siblings, and significantly more likely to suffer from kidney disease.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.sciencedaily.com
A number of studies have found that radiation, chemotherapy, and other such treatments significantly shorten the lives of childhood cancer survivors.
"As a result of their curative therapies, childhood cancer survivors face an increased risk of morbidity and mortality," the researchers wrote. Nearly 75 percent of such children develop a chronic health condition within 30 years of diagnosis, while 42.4 percent develop severe, disabling or life-threatening health conditions. Because cardiovascular disease is a major killer of childhood cancer survivors, the researchers examined the effect of radiation treatment on the risk of diabetes, a major correlate of cardiovascular mortality.
The researchers examined diabetes rates in 8,599 people who had been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 21, between 1970 and 1986. These rates were compared with 2,936 of their cancer-free siblings, who were randomly selected. All participants were screened for diabetes in 2003.
After adjusting for other diabetes risk factors including age, body mass index, ethnicity, exercise, income, insurance and race, the researchers found that those who had undergone cancer treatment as children were 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes as adults than their siblings were. Those who had been treated with abdominal radiation were 2.7 times more likely to have diabetes, while those who had been treated with whole-body radiation were a shocking 7.2 times more likely to be diabetic.
Risk increased with radiation dose used, and decreased with age at diagnosis. People diagnosed with cancer before the age of five had 2.4 times the diabetes risk as those diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 20.
A previous study found that childhood cancer survivors were five to 10 times more likely to suffer from heart disease than their cancer-free siblings, and significantly more likely to suffer from kidney disease.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.sciencedaily.com
Friday, January 15, 2010
Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA
(NaturalNews) In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.
Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...)
In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.
The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."
In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.
And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."
(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)
The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."
In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.
(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)
How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?
Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.
What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.
Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe?
What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?
As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)
"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."
Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.
And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.
Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.
When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!
As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...)
"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.
'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."
The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...)
"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."
NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim...
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...
Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...)
In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.
The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."
In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.
Never approved as safe for humans
"At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com (http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...). "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe."And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."
(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)
The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."
In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.
(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)
Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects?
Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?
Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.
What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.
Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe?
What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?
As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)
"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."
Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.
And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.
Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.
Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe
Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer.When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!
As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...)
"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.
'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."
The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...)
"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."
NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.
Resources:
Physics Letters, January 8, 2010http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim...
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...
Friday, December 4, 2009
Medical imaging tests expose patients to dangerous amounts of unnecessary radiation
(NaturalNews) A University of Wisconsin (UW) study has found that patients who receive computed tomography (CT) scans for various abdominal and pelvic conditions often receive a slew of additional scans that are unnecessary and that expose them to excess radiation. The findings were presented at the meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).
A typical CT scan involves taking images of the patient using an intravenous injection of an imaging chemical in order to contrast the image. Occasionally it is helpful to take more than one image, but many times doctors will order multiple images unnecessarily.
In many cases, doctors are not being careful to assess the doses of radiation they are administering to patients. Though they are supposed to take certain measures to accurately ensure that the radiation dosages are as minimal as possible while still achieving successful scans, Kristie Guite, M.D., of UW emphasized that many doctors do not follow this principle.
Study coauthor J. Louis Hinshaw, M.D., backed up this point by explaining that CT protocols are meant to be custom-tailored to a patient's specific condition. In a great majority of cases, a one-size-fits-all approach is taken that puts the patient at increased risk.
Dr. Hinshaw suggests that patients who are prescribed CT scans should ask their doctors about the risks involved. They should also find out from the CT facility how many image exposures will need to be taken and if a lesser amount would suffice for their particular conditions.
Western medicine is strangely preoccupied with the desire to visually map physical tissues in the body as part of a diagnostic process. Why is this so strange? Because most modern illnesses have nothing to do with the physical structure of tissues. Instead, they are expressions of the function of the body's tissues and organs.
Some systems of medicine focus more on the functional relationship between organs than the physical, compartmentalized appearance of those organs, and they have far more success in helping patients without harming them. For example, I know a Chinese Medicine doctor who can tell you more about your heart, liver and kidneys by simply feeling your pulse than a whole hospital full of CT scans and MRI machines. Imaging your body is rarely necessary unless you've suffered some sort of acute physical trauma such as being struck by a flying pitchfork or hit upside the head with a heavy stack of health insurance forms. For most health conditions that exist today, medical imaging tests are not merely unnecessary, they are dangerous!
Medical imaging radiation isn't good for you. Just one CT scan exposes you to as much radiation as 100 chest X-rays. Shockingly, many doctors don't know this! And they fail to take medical imaging radiation into account when prescribing these procedures for patients.
The next time a doctor wants to subject you to medical imaging tests, ask WHY you need the test and WHAT the test might reveal that could be helpful to your physician. You might also ask if there's a safer alternative that could provide the same diagnostic information without the radiation shower.
And if you don't believe me, just ask yourself this: How come every time you get a chest X-ray, a mammogram or a CT scan, the doctor flees the immediate area and only returns after the imaging is done? The reason, of course, is because they're not stupid enough to hang out in the radiation zone and be exposed to the very same radiation they've ordered for you.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
A typical CT scan involves taking images of the patient using an intravenous injection of an imaging chemical in order to contrast the image. Occasionally it is helpful to take more than one image, but many times doctors will order multiple images unnecessarily.
In many cases, doctors are not being careful to assess the doses of radiation they are administering to patients. Though they are supposed to take certain measures to accurately ensure that the radiation dosages are as minimal as possible while still achieving successful scans, Kristie Guite, M.D., of UW emphasized that many doctors do not follow this principle.
Study coauthor J. Louis Hinshaw, M.D., backed up this point by explaining that CT protocols are meant to be custom-tailored to a patient's specific condition. In a great majority of cases, a one-size-fits-all approach is taken that puts the patient at increased risk.
Dr. Hinshaw suggests that patients who are prescribed CT scans should ask their doctors about the risks involved. They should also find out from the CT facility how many image exposures will need to be taken and if a lesser amount would suffice for their particular conditions.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
These last few weeks have been huge for revelations about the dangers of medical imaging tests. It's not just CT scans, either: Mammograms are also under fire for exposing women to excess radiation and actually causing cancer.Western medicine is strangely preoccupied with the desire to visually map physical tissues in the body as part of a diagnostic process. Why is this so strange? Because most modern illnesses have nothing to do with the physical structure of tissues. Instead, they are expressions of the function of the body's tissues and organs.
Some systems of medicine focus more on the functional relationship between organs than the physical, compartmentalized appearance of those organs, and they have far more success in helping patients without harming them. For example, I know a Chinese Medicine doctor who can tell you more about your heart, liver and kidneys by simply feeling your pulse than a whole hospital full of CT scans and MRI machines. Imaging your body is rarely necessary unless you've suffered some sort of acute physical trauma such as being struck by a flying pitchfork or hit upside the head with a heavy stack of health insurance forms. For most health conditions that exist today, medical imaging tests are not merely unnecessary, they are dangerous!
Medical imaging radiation isn't good for you. Just one CT scan exposes you to as much radiation as 100 chest X-rays. Shockingly, many doctors don't know this! And they fail to take medical imaging radiation into account when prescribing these procedures for patients.
The next time a doctor wants to subject you to medical imaging tests, ask WHY you need the test and WHAT the test might reveal that could be helpful to your physician. You might also ask if there's a safer alternative that could provide the same diagnostic information without the radiation shower.
And if you don't believe me, just ask yourself this: How come every time you get a chest X-ray, a mammogram or a CT scan, the doctor flees the immediate area and only returns after the imaging is done? The reason, of course, is because they're not stupid enough to hang out in the radiation zone and be exposed to the very same radiation they've ordered for you.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
