|
[ Detoxification Procedures Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I have 3 ct scans in my life. One when I was 16. I am freaking myself out about the radiation from these. I have done the detox baths, but still worried about the accumulated dose. I know one of the ct scans was not repeated, I think one of them was. (same day)
////
Can anyone explain how radiation is accumulated and if 3 ct scans puts me at a high risk for cancer?
In Reply to: Radiation posted by Driving myself nuts on March 28, 2003 at 21:33:35:
How do you think the detox baths help you to protect against effects of radiation of CT scans?
I think one way radiation accumulates is via absorbing radioactive materials. They stay in your body and keep ionizing your cells.
Another one is just production of free radicals in your body by radiation such as that in CT scans. There's no radioactive substances ingested during this, is there?. If too many of them are created, risk of diseases rises. Time period must be a factor too.
From what I know, consuming large amounts of various antioxidants would work to protect against effects of radiation. Take a look at http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/em/. Read about antioxidants there.
In Reply to: Radiation posted by Driving myself nuts on March 28, 2003 at 21:33:35:
i'm thinking ct radiation levels are not as high as ordinary x-ray, a hospital using the equipment could tell you. But 3 scans doesn't seem like enough to justify your worries. If that doesn't help, alpha lipoic acid is excellent for radiation detox, look it up.
In Reply to: Radiation posted by Driving myself nuts on March 28, 2003 at 21:33:35:
CT radiation does not accumulate in the body. (Only radioactive ions do, so unless you live in a fallout zone . . .)
The danger from excessive exposure comes from damage to your DNA, which might increase your risk of cancer. 3 times over the course of a lifetime is nothing to be worried about.
If you want to be pro-active in regard to preventing cancer, consume anti-oxidants to neutralize free radicals. However, anti-oxidants will not do anything about the CT exposures. The body repairs DNA damage where it can. There really is nothing more you can do.
In Reply to: Re: Radiation posted by R. on March 28, 2003 at 22:32:21:
Free radicals, by their nature, are extremely reactive molecules. Thus they don't accumulate.
They are so unhappy with their structures, that they snatch body parts off of other molecules with wild abandon. Once they have done that, they settle down, stop being radical, and become conservative. However, in their wake they have left mutilated molecules of changed structure. These accumulate, unless they can be repaired.
In Reply to: Radiation posted by Driving myself nuts on March 28, 2003 at 21:33:35:
Hi, Driving.
Havew you looked at the detox archives about how to get rid of accumulated radiation?
Walt
In Reply to: Free Radicals posted by cris on March 29, 2003 at 06:01:34:
Don't the mutilated molecules become free radicals as well?
And to be precise, I did't say that free radicals accumulate in the body, did I? I said that radioactive substances can accumulate.
In Reply to: Re: Radiation posted by Marcus on March 29, 2003 at 02:05:32:
Each CT scan is about .697 rem of exposure to ionizing radition. (By comparison, a chest x-ray is .075 rem.)
5 rem per year is considered the maximum safe level of exposure for people who work with ionizing radiation.
In theory, 1 rem can cause one case of cancer in 5000 exposures, but you would have dificulty knowing as fully one third of the 5000 will die from cancer induced by other causes.
To put it in perspective, if you are going to get cancer from these CT scans, you will get it no matter what you do now. Radiation baths and flushings are a waste of time and money for you, because the radiation you were exposed to does not accumulate in your body. You have not ingested polonium, cesium, strontium-90, radium, radon, etc, so there is nothing to flush out.
Focus on free radical prevention with anti-oxidants, and eat nutritionally sound meals so that your DNA can repair itself better to lower your lifetime risk of cancer. Carcinogens and free radicals pose a far greater threat (remember the 1/3 of 5000) than these CT scans. There's no need to drive yourself nuts.
In Reply to: Radiation posted by Driving myself nuts on March 28, 2003 at 21:33:35:
Thank you for all your advice. I am going to the detox archive now. Dr. Stoll, how DOES radiation accumulate, who is right?
In Reply to: Follow-up info posted by Marcus on March 29, 2003 at 17:49:52:
5 REM is not a safe level of radiation. At 5 REM you start to see blood changes. However, 5 mREM is the maximum amount per term that most radiation based fields allow. Example-Nuclear Reactor Operators are allowed 5 mREM per quarter in Naval facilities. If they reach that, they are no longer allowed in the reactor rooms until the quarter is up. 1 REM=5000 mREM
In Reply to: Re: Follow-up info posted by Hope on March 29, 2003 at 22:17:01:
Get your facts straight.
You get 54 mREM/year or more from background radiation alone.
1000 mREM = 1 REM (It's called the metric system.)
As stated, 5 REM/year is the maximum permissible dose for people who work with ionizing radiation. This is considered the maximum dafe level of exposure.
500 mREM per year is the average ALARA (as low as reasonable achievable)exposure for a university physics lab tech. Show us the naval website that says 5 mREM/quarter is the occupation limit.
REM Levels and efects
1000 rem ---- An acute dose would cause immediate illness and subsequent death within weeks.
100 rem ---- Acute dose could cause illness such as nausea, and cancer in 5% of persons within several years.
5 rem ---- MPD allowed by the NRC for occupational exposure over one year. No likely effects at this level.
0.3 rem ---- Estimated yearly exposure to all individuals from natural sources such as radon and cosmic rays, commonly referred to as background radiation. There are no likely effects at this exposure level.
In Reply to: Re: Follow-up info posted by Marcus on March 29, 2003 at 23:03:39:
Argue with the NRC, Hope.
In Reply to: Re: Follow-up info posted by Marcus on March 29, 2003 at 23:03:39:
I mistyped the 1...I meant 5 my bad. Yes you are correct 5 REM=5000 mREM. My husband was stationed on the USS Enterprise as a Nuclear Reactor Operator. He informed me that I was incorrect in saying the limit for Military personnel is 5 mREM. It is 500 mREM. I should have talked with him before I submitted my earlier post. I was wrong with the figures. I apologize. Still at 5 REM you see blood changes. I do not see how that is safe, but he says "it isn't all that serious". So, from now on I will leave the Radiation talk to him. ;)
In Reply to: Re: Free Radicals posted by R. on March 29, 2003 at 16:27:07:
Here are a couple of interesting articles I came across re free radicals while browsing the internet:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/news/conferences/ada2002/milner.pdf
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/1-3/IT-final.html
In Reply to: Re: Radiation posted by Feeling a little better on March 29, 2003 at 20:49:13:
Hi, Feeling.
The fact that radiation accumulates is evident by all of the standards. There are lifetime standards that accumulate over a lifetime. How do you think the little radiation badges work? They give a measurement of how much radiation any individual has "accumulated". Why do you think the xray tech wears the lead apron and goes behind the lead wall before taking your xray?
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Radiation (Archive in detox.) posted by Walt Stoll on March 30, 2003 at 10:22:13:
Radiation doesn't necessarily accumulate in the body, although it can, if you take radioactive particles into the body through dust,etc.
The badges measure the cumulative dose to which you have been exposed, which is loosely correlated with probabilities of adverse health effects due to DNA and other damage. If the Rad Tech took the badge home and wore it, never using it at work again, the cumulative dose would only go up at the same rate as one worn by his neighbor, who had never worked around ionizing radiation.
Urine and other samples are used to test for internal radiation contamination from particles. That is a whole other ball game, since you continue to get dosed as long as the particles remain in your body and are still radioactive.
CT, MRI and X-Rays don't fall into that category.
--Ex-Radiation Technician
In Reply to: While browsing posted by cris on March 30, 2003 at 08:32:39:
Yes, interesting. I guess it makes sense that we've evolved to use ionizing radiation to our benefit. I've gotta move closer to a nuclear power plant and pray for a major leak :)
In Reply to: It ain't necessarily so posted by cris on March 30, 2003 at 13:21:15:
Yep, that shows that one shouldn't trust anyone blindly, whether it's a doctor, traditional or alternative, or anyone else. Evidently, even a University educated doctor can be delusional about basic scientific facts that should be taught in middle or high school, and have to resort to lame arguments a lay person would use. However, if one is as dumb as a rock, one has no choice but to do and think what others tell him or her. Schools in this country are horrible.
In Reply to: It ain't necessarily so posted by cris on March 30, 2003 at 13:21:15:
Thanks Cris.
What is YOUR definition of "cumulative". Why is a "lifetime dose" of radiation important? The damage radiation does accumulates in the body for a lifetime!
Walt
In Reply to: Re: It ain't necessarily so posted by Walt Stoll on March 31, 2003 at 09:39:00:
Yes, the damage accumulates, unless repaired. The ionizing radiation does not. The difference is very important, in my opinion. If the radiation accumulated it would continue to do more damage all the time. If the damage accumulated, that accumulation would stop when radiation exposure stopped. That difference is very important to ultimate effects.
In Reply to: Re: It ain't necessarily so posted by cris on March 31, 2003 at 19:29:56:
Thanks, Cris.
I must have misunderstood my entire medical school education. I see no real difference between accumulated damage and accumulated radiation. For example: there is a different, and kind, of dose of radiation that is used for each different kind of cancer. No matter which is used, the damage to the tissue is continuous and progressive for the life of that individual WITH NO MORE RADIATION OF ANY KIND ADMINISTERED.
Why can one exposed to any form of radiation see the 1/2 cup of epsom salts and 1/2 cup of sodium bicarb, in a bathtub of water, turn milky until several soaks start to stay clear? What is changing in the ionic relationships in the water and what kind of electromagnetic instability in the irradiated tissue does this represent. What do you know about the aura that is recorded every time an MRI is done?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: It ain't necessarily so (Ain't necessarily not so.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 01, 2003 at 07:42:41:
Doc, I don't know the answers to all your queries, but I am hoping you will send me some sources of information so I can pursue this line of intriguing evidence. Every time I hear these snippets of information, my interest is piqued maximally, but it is tough to get the "hard" data. Please enlighten me, as I have been your obedient foil.
Thanks
In Reply to: So, what is it, Dr. Stoll? posted by cris on April 01, 2003 at 07:55:39:
Thanks, Cris.
Try the bath tub thing and let us know what you learn.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: So, what is it, Dr. Stoll? posted by Walt Stoll on April 02, 2003 at 07:36:31:
Do I have to get irradiated to do this experiment, or can I get positve results with 10 year old radiation?
In Reply to: Re: So, what is it, Dr. Stoll? posted by Walt Stoll on April 02, 2003 at 07:36:31:
Comments?
Misty
http://www.searching-alternatives.com
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/04/01/health.xrays.reut/index.html
Study: Damage stays from low-dose X-rays
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Low doses of X-rays such as those patients
receive in the dentist's chair may do more long-lasting damage than
higher doses, German scientists reported on Monday in a study that
turns common wisdom on its head.
Their findings, based on experiment with cell cultures, will have to
be duplicated by other labs and then repeated in living animals
before doctors can offer guidance on the effects of low-dose X-rays
on humans.
The team, led by Markus Lobrich at the Universitat des Saarlandes,
said its reasearch suggests that doses of X-rays generally
considered harmless may in fact do long-lasting damage.
But they said they had developed a test that would help doctors look
for genetic damage in people exposed to low doses of X-rays, such as
cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, patients getting X-rays and
professionals working with X-ray equipment.
Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
Lobrich's team said they exposed human cell cultures to varying X-
ray doses in the laboratory.
To their surprise, they found that damage from low radiation levels
lingered days to weeks longer than damage caused by more powerful
levels.
Ionizing radiation like the kind produced by X-rays and some nuclear
breakdown products can cause leukemia and other cancers. The
radiation can cause breaks in DNA that go across both strands of its
double helix structure.
Scientists had assumed that the body moves to repair these breaks at
the same rate, no matter what the dose of radiation.
But Lobrich's team found this may not be true. It could be, they
propose, that the body simply does not recognize lower levels of
damage and does not move to repair it.
When these damaged cells divide and multiply, the unrepaired damage
multiplies along with them, they suggested
In Reply to: Re: So, what is it, Dr. Stoll? posted by cris on April 02, 2003 at 08:19:36:
Hi, Cris.
Since we are all accumulating this stuff every day, 10 year old stuff is enough. However, as you do the daily soaks you will see the water clear. The ideal is for you to do soaks about every 6 months, until the water clears, to keep your storage to a healthy level.
Walt
|
[ Detoxification Procedures Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |