• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Can low grade_radiation_protect_against_cancer
 

Can low grade_radiation_protect_against_cancer

on

  • 293 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
293
Views on SlideShare
293
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Can low grade_radiation_protect_against_cancer Can low grade_radiation_protect_against_cancer Document Transcript

    • internetmedicaljournal.blogspot.com http://internetmedicaljournal.blogspot.com/2012/03/can- low-grade-radiation-protect-against.html?pfstyle=wpCan Low Grade Radiation Protect Against Cancer?Surprising Research Finds Beneficial Effects of Low Level Radiation ExposureAuthor: Tom Heston, MDCancer is a heterogeneous disease characterized by uncontrolled cellular growth and multiplication.There are several risk factors associated with cancer, including smoking, inactivity, and a poor diet.However, the role of radiation exposure as a risk factor is unclear. We do know that sudden highdoses of radiation, such as that experienced by people exposed to the atomic bomb blasts inHiroshima and Nagasaki, increases cancer risk. But does all radiation increase the risk of cancer?Surprising evidence suggests that the opposite occurs, that low levels of radiation may actuallyprotect against cancer by a process called radiation hormesis .The best evidence for a beneficial effect of low level radiation comes from Asia. In Taiwan,approximately 25 years ago, recycled steel was accidentally contaminated with radioactive cobalt-60. This steel was used to build more than 180 buildings, and approximately 10,000 peopleoccupied this buildings for about 10 to 20 years. The mean dose to the residents wasapproximately 13 mSv per year and the maximum dose was 160 mSv per year. For comparisonpurposes, the occupational limit for radiation workers in the U.S. is 50 mSv per year. TheInternational Atomic Energy Agency sets the occupational limit at 20 mSv per year.This unique research, made possible due to the accidental contamination of steel used to makeapartment buildings, found that estimates of radiation risk from the International Commission onRadiological Protection were completely wrong. Compared to residents of nearby apartmentbuildings, that did not contain the radioactive cobalt-50 contamination, the people exposed to lowlevel radiation had greatly reduced cancer deaths and congenital malformations. The cancer deathrate among those exposed to low level radiation was only 3% of the rate of the general public. Putanother way, the general public was more than 30 times more likely to die of cancer than the peopleliving in the apartment buildings that exposed them to low level radiation over many years.Furthermore, the congenital malformation rate of the radiation exposed residents was 6.5% of therate of the general public. The general public was more than 15 times more likely to have a childwith congenital malformations compared to the radiation exposed residents.This is strong evidence that a low level of radiation exposure has a beneficial health effect in termsof cancer and congenital malformations. Furthermore, this research is from real world data, notconjecture or theoretical mathematical models.Based upon this promising research, and similar findings from other epidemiologic studies, somescientists have proposed that further human experiments be carried out, perhaps in nursing homes.Of course, such research would require full consent, Institutional Review Board oversight, and fulldisclosure to all individuals involved. But if death from cancer can be reduced by a factor of 30,certainly more research into this possibility is needed.Current radiation hysteria and the linear no-threshold hypothesis do not appear to be based uponvalid, scientific evidence. It is time to move out of the dark ages when it comes to radiation, andinsist that policy decisions be based upon real world evidence.REFERENCE: Chen WL et al. Is chronic radiation an effective prophylaxis against cancer? J AmerPhys Surg 2004;9(1):6-10.Author(s) take full responsibility for the content of their article, including originality, copyrights, andcompliance with all relevant Internet laws and guidelines. Articles are not edited for content by theInternet Medical Journal.