Radioactive iodine and the cancer risk
Radiation Is Not On People’s Radar, Dr. Mark Sircus, Activist Post, 9 April 13, “……….Iodine in the Air The risks associated with iodine-131 contamination in Europe were not “negligible,” after Fukushima exploded in 2011, according to CRIIRAD, a French research body on radioactivity. They advised at that time for pregnant women and infants against “risky behavior,” such as consuming fresh milk or vegetables with large leaves. In response to thousands of inquiries from citizens concerned about fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Europe, CRIIRAD has compiled an information package on the risks of radioactive iodine-131 contamination in Europe.
CRIIRAD said it had detected radioactive iodine-131 in rainwater in south-eastern France. In parallel testing, the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), the national public institution monitoring nuclear and radiological risks, found iodine 131 in milk. In normal times, no trace of iodine-131 should be detectable in rainwater or milk. Radiation monitors in Canada, in Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia also detected radioactive iodine.
In the United States the 2011 EPA data showed rising levels of Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137 up to 300% of maximum limits. Hawaii milk samples showed radiation 800% above normal for Cesium-134, 633% for Cesium-137, and 600% for Iodine-131.
One of the reasons the medical establishment is incapable of responding to the nuclear threat and the spreading contamination from Japan (that is circling the globe) is that it is an institution that loves to use radioactive iodine, a substance that causes cancer, to treat cancer
According to a 2011 study published in Cancer[1] researchers are fingering doctors who are treating patients with early-stage, low-risk thyroid cancer using radioactive iodine, which does not increase their chances of surviving but does instead put them at risk for a secondary cancer. “Our study shows that these low-risk patients do not need radioactive iodine,” Dr. Ian Ganly, one of the study’s authors from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, told Reuters Health. “Therefore there is no need to expose these patients to any risk from (radioactive iodine) treatment,” he said in an email.
The American Thyroid Association endorses the use of radioactive iodine even though it causes cancer of the salivary gland—where radioactive iodine may accumulate—as well as leukemia. Dr. Ganly said the risk of leukemia increases because radioactive iodine circulates in the blood, thus exposing bone marrow to its tissue-killing effects……
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/radiation-is-not-on-peoples-radar.html
Comparing internal and external emitters of radiation
Risk from internal exposure is 200-600 times greater than risk from external exposure. See this, this, this and this.
cesium-137 and radioactive iodine – the two main radioactive substances being spewed by the leaking Japanese nuclear plants – are not naturally-occurring substances, and can become powerful internal emitters which can cause tremendous damage to the health of people who are unfortunate enough to breathe in even a particle of the substances, or ingest them in food or water.
Fake Science Alert: Fukushima Radiation Can’t Be Compared to Bananas or X-Rays http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-01/fake-science-alert-fukushima-radiation-can%E2%80%99t-be-compared-bananas-or-x-rays George Washington 04/01/2013
“….Mixing Apples (External) and Oranges (Internal) Moreover, radioactive particles which end up inside of our lungs or gastrointestinal track, as opposed to radiation which comes to us from outside of our skin are much more dangerous than general exposures to radiation.
The National Research Council’s Committee to Assess the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program explains:
Radioactivity generates radiation by emitting particles. Radioactive materials outside the the body are called external emitters, and radioactive materials located within the body are called internal emitters.
Internal emitters are much more dangerous than external emitters. Specifically, one is only exposed to radiation as long as he or she is near the external emitter. Read more »
Attempts to treat radiation-caused disease
Top Docs’ (Partial) Cure for Nuclear Radiation: Bone-Marrow Drugs http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/health-department-nuclear/ BY ROBERT BECKHUSEN 04.04.13
Even if a nuclear bomb exploded far enough away for you to survive the blast, the radiation could still kill you. Now the U.S. government wants to find a cure for one the most vexing causes of radioactive death — starting with your bones.
According to a research solicitation released this week by the Department of Health and Human Services, the department is preparing to spend up to $8 million beginning in 2014 to research ways to treat severe thrombocytopenia — or the loss of cell platelets — caused by excessive radiation poisoning of vital blood-producing organs and tissues like bone marrow and the spleen. Once your organs get blasted with radiation from a catastrophic nuclear detonation, you will likely begin to suffer from internal bleeding and get really sick. Then you’ll die.
There’s little anyone can do about it in a timely way. “Currently, there is no approved therapeutic drug in the Strategic National Stockpile for this radiation-induced complication,” the solicitation notes. The only therapies available are injections of more platelets; or a blood transfusion. But the logistics of providing these therapies to thousands of potential nuclear radiation victims — in a mass-casualty attack or accident — is time-consuming and impractical.
The solution, the health department believes, are in “modified first generation thrombopoietin receptor agents,” or proteins that regulate and stimulate platelet growth in bone marrow. Find a way to administer these proteins, and they could lead to “accelerated platelet regeneration and increased survival.” To buy time, the department wants to include “novel cell therapy approaches that mitigate the depth or duration of thrombocytopenia and that would be amenable to the operational and logistical constraints of a mass casualty situation.”
In this case, the department defines “mass casualty situation” to be either a terrorist “incident” or nuclear power plant accident — like the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns. That means the platelet-producing proteins have to be administered quickly.
Of particular interest are thrombopoietin drugs that could be injected, swallowed, inhaled or absorbed by the skin. Obviously, the drugs will also have to work safely with groups who face the greatest risks from radiation poisoning: children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with chronic illnesses.
There’s been been a flurry of activity around nuclear disaster research in recent months. In February, the Pentagon’s mad scientists at Darpa published a request for information regarding therapies that could mitigate long-term radiation exposure risks like cancer — and how radiation effects human DNA. The Defense Threat Reduction agency is meanwhile spending up to $6 million in 2013 researching new ways to detect nuclear weapons.
The Health and Human Services solicitation isn’t as far-reaching, not even close, but that’s not surprising. But if the research bears fruit, it could keep your bones strong. Oh, and save you from a very unpleasant death.
Medical radiation rules for Texas
New Texas radiation rule takes effect May 1 By Eric Barnes, AuntMinnie.com staff writer March 28, 2013 – Hoping to avoid the rash of radiation overexposures that shook California radiology like an earthquake a few years back, the state of Texas has decided to implement its own radiation exposure rule beginning May 1.
Unlike the California law, however, Texas will administer its new regime as an administrative directive by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS).
Texas Administrative Code rule §289.227 includes guidelines for radiation reporting, training personnel, and establishing acceptable dose thresholds, according to department spokesperson Christine Mann.
“The major thing in the new rule would be requiring healthcare providers that perform fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures and CT to develop a radiation protocol committee,” Mann told AuntMinnie.com. “Another change is the requirement for radiation safety awareness — that’s for physicians or those delegated by a physician to perform interventional fluoroscopy or CT, but it doesn’t apply to radiologists or oncologists.”
By May 1, all healthcare providers using fluoroscopy and CT must have a radiation program in place, the department wrote in its announcement of the new program on March 1.
“The program must record patient radiation dose on all CT and fluoroscopy exams ([CT dose index], [dose-length product], and air kerma values), establish and manage radiation dose thresholds on all CT and fluoroscopy procedures, notify patients of dose threshold breech, and provide good radiation safety training to all staff members performing CT and fluoroscopy procedures,” DSHS wrote.
The actual dose for the patients need not be calculated for each procedure, but the radiologist is responsible for maintaining a record of the radiation output information, and using that information to estimate the radiation dose, Mann explained.
“They have to record that and make sure it’s documented in the patient health record,” Mann said. “They have to maintain a record of the radiation output, and then use that data to estimate the radiation dose to the skin if necessary.”
In addition to all CT scans, common fluoroscopy procedures covered by the law include the following (without limitation):
- Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation
- Embolization of any lesion in any location
- Stroke therapy
- Biliary drainage
- Angioplasty
- Stent-graft placement
- Carotid stent placement
- Chemoembolization
- Angiography and intervention for gastrointestinal hemorrhage
- Radiofrequency ablation
- Complex placement of cardiac electrophysiology devices
- Percutaneous coronary interventions
As for CT, CT dose index volume (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP) are the most common output measures that require reporting under the new regime.
In the event a patient receives an overdose — that is, if the recorded dose output exceeds the threshold established by the protocol committee — the provider is required to report the incident to Texas DSHS according to Texas Administrative Code §289.231(hh) and (ii), Mann toldAuntMinnie.com…… http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=102964
Ionising radiation’s effects on humans
Powerful Lies – The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster And The Radioactive Effects On Human Health By Richard Wilcox PhD 2-22-13 Rense.com,
|
“…….The nuclear establishment would prefer the general public believe that nuclear radiation is essentially nothing to be concerned with. However, their own science and words belie the rhetoric. The Cult of Nuclearists have billions of dollars to devote to propaganda whereas the Nuclear Truth Tellers (NTTers) are marginalized by a whole host of economic and political tricks. One of the trump cards that the Nuclearists hold is that understanding the science of radiation effects when presented in an intentionally confusing way to mislead is beyond the capabilities of the average person to grasp, and that they have no other choice than to trust the experts. Fortunately there is a large body of literature that debunks the nuclear industry’s powerful lies.
|
Busby has two important and rigorously researched books on radiation science that are among the most important (31; 32). I also recommend a perusal through longtime activist Russell Hoffman’s incredible library of nuclear related books (33). Hoffman’s “Code Killers” is an easily understood, exhaustively researched and colorfully presented educational primer on the dangers of nuclear energy. It can be downloaded for free and is an ideal educational tool (34). Read more »
Breast cancer threat from 3D mammograms
New 3-D Mammography is Basically a CT Scan for Breasts
The procedures give women twice as much radiation as a standard mammogram
New 3D Mammography Significantly Increases Radiation Exposure, and Your Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer Mercola.com February 19, 2013 By Dr. Mercola
Breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, by downplaying or outright ignoring its significant risks.
In the US, women are still urged to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40, completely ignoring the updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009.
Unfortunately, many women are completely unaware that the science simply does not back up the use of routine mammograms as a means to prevent breast cancer death.
As was revealed in a 2011 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. Read more »
Bone cancer from low level radiation
Study: Low radiation levels in atomic bomb survivors could lead to soft-tissue sarcomahttp://www.healio.com/orthopedics/oncology/news/online/%7BF99DF823-6823-4E35-B0A7-53720A8B6195%7D/Study-Low-radiation-levels-in-atomic-bomb-survivors-could-lead-to-soft-tissue-sarcoma Samartzis D. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013. February 15, 2013 New results from the prospective, longitudinal Life Span Study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki show that low levels of exposure to ionizing radiation may result in soft-tissue sarcoma, and 1 Gy doses nearly doubled the survivors’ sarcoma risk.
“Our study attempts to raise awareness that even moderate levels of ionizing radiation exposure—from medical imaging, radiation therapy, and environmental exposure—can lead to the development of soft-tissue sarcomas,” orthopedic surgeon Dino Samartzis, DSc, MSc, and colleagues wrote in the study.Among 80,180 survivors they analyzed, researchers identified 104 soft-tissue sarcomas, with 4.1 cases observed every 100,000 person-years. The survivors were analyzed against a control group with <0.005 Gy average radiation exposure. Most survivors with sarcoma were diagnosed with leiomyosarcomas (37 cases) or malignant fibrous histiocytomas (11 cases).
The survivors were aged 26.8 years, mean, at the time of the bombings and were diagnosed at age 63.6 years mean, with the majority of cases seen in the uterus or stomach. Though 27 sarcoma cases were confirmed at autopsy and two cases by death certificate, the difference in radiation exposure for these individuals and those diagnosed while still living were not significant.
Affected by Fukushima radiation – 70,000 American service personnel and families
Fukushima Rescue Mission Lasting Legacy: Radioactive Contamination of Americans, New Jersey News, 31 JANUARY 2013 BY ROGER WITHERSPOON
The Department of Defense has decided to walk away from an unprecedented medical registry of nearly 70,000 American service members, civilian workers, and their families caught in the radioactive clouds blowing from the destroyed nuclear power plants at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan.
The decision to cease updating the registry means there will be no way to determine if patterns of health problems emerge among the members of the Marines, Army, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, and Navy stationed at 63 installations in Japan with their families. In addition, it leaves thousands of sailors and Marines in the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group 7 on their own when it comes to determining if any of them are developing problems caused by radiation exposure. Read more »
Chernobyl’s cancer legacy – the IAEA misled the world about this
Thyroid Cancers: More, Sooner, Untreatable Chernobyl at Ten: Half-lives and Half Truths, Chernobyl, by John M. LaForge
“……Dr. Soyfer further discovered that the Soviets focused on and publicized the fallout’s radioactive iodine content, but understated the amounts of other far more dangerous isotopes. While 10 to 15 percent of the fallout was iodine-131, the long-lived radionuclides strontium-90 and cesium-137 made up more than two thirds of the total contamination.[12]
Furthermore, the Soviet’s 1986 estimate of future cancer deaths was based only on the impact of iodine-131, and then only on external doses. As a result, the IAEA misled the world about Chernobyl’s cancer threat.People contaminated with iodine-131 ingested it, first by breathing, then by drinking contaminated milk for six weeks. Thyroid cancer is caused by the iodine-131. Its rates are today ten times higher than the increase any scientist had anticipated. The U. N. has said that the number of thyroid cancers among children in Belarus — where 70 percent of the fallout landed — are 285 times pre-Chernobyl levels.[13] Read more »
Radiation at Treasure Island, USA
Alarming Radiation Levels Found on Treasure Island (includes Video -
on cancers in former residents) )
The Navy’s own data suggests that island residents were at risk of
radiation exposure.
East Bay Express, By Ashley Bates, 27 Dec 12, Navy officials have repeatedly downplayed the risks of
radiation exposure to current and former residents on Treasure Island.
But data from the US Navy shows that measurements taken in former
residential areas of the island revealed pockets of alarmingly high
radiation levels. Read more »
-
Archives
- April 2013 (25)
- February 2013 (9)
- December 2012 (39)
- November 2012 (31)
- September 2012 (16)
- August 2012 (36)
- July 2012 (43)
- June 2012 (35)
- May 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (29)
- March 2012 (13)
- February 2012 (15)
-
Categories
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- Audiovisual
- General
- HISTORY
- LOCATIONS
- NUCLEAR COMPANIES
- RECOMMENDED
- Uncategorized
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
