Fukushima's real threat?

[cityqat]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

I have many doctors and specialists. My neurologist, and chief practitioner, is Dr. Devonshire at UBC Hospital in Vancouver, BC. I saw at least 5 or 6 specialists during the process of chemo. I had a cardiologist, neurologist (Devonshire), GP (Dr. Cook, MD), and who knows what other 'ologists' I had. I had A LOT of people on my medical file(s) as I went through the mill.

*All* doctors get paid to do their job. In the US, it is a very high amount that is set by and for the doctor that is paid by private people or insurance companies. In Canada, they ensure that *all* people can be treated regardless of income. Dr. Cook has been a great doctor for me.

[cityqat]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Thanks, Shiny!

[aaron]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

c1ue, given even my near-existent knowledge on chemotherapy

How can you say he is wrong if you do not even have any knowledge?

There are doctors on this forum for sure, but as far as I know
Chemotherapy= chemicals
Radiation Therapy = Radioactive.

Very small (negligible) amounts of radiation are used in diagnostic injections.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

I was given the "maximum allowable amount of this chemo drug for a lifetime." The people that administered it to me were fully covered in safety gear (masks, boots and head gear included) and had to leave the room after setting my IV. I was not allowed to be around people for 1 week due to the radiation that I was giving off post-treatment. The drug came in a tub marked with warning symbols galore for radiation exposure.

To be ready for this treatment, they had to measure the activity in my brain and heart. For these tests, I was injected with a drug that came straight from TRIUMF (the nearby nuclear physics laboratory - http://www.triumf.ca/). This, too, was radioactive and sat in my veins and blood for weeks.

If that wasn't enough, you're right, I had *many* xrays. I am sure those were far beyond the 'healthy' limit. I had MRI's, Angiograms, brain scans, PET scans among umpteen other tests. I have never heard of many of them, and they warned me that I was a 'guinea pig' for some of them, as no other treatment was available.

Thank you for the information. I would note several items:

1) A label denoting radioactivity doesn't really convey much information beyond that there is some radioactivity. It could be very little (medical tracers) or very much (processed plutonium).

2) MRIs do not involve nuclear fission related radiation. Angiograms and PET scans do involve X-rays or gamma rays, while brain scans can be MRI and/or PET/X-ray.

I don't doubt you had a significant exposure to radiation. The isolation you were put through seems motivated by the precautionary principle; it wouldn't surprise me that you were actually injected with radioactive iodine 131 or some such as the 'marker' - and it was expected to decay in a week (I131 half-life = 8 days).

I would lastly note that it seems the radiation levels you underwent were deemed acceptable for you because of the advanced state of your cancer. A single chest CT - according to wiki - is about 5 mSv of radiation exposure. Between the PET markers (emit gamma rays), and the many X-rays, and the drug, no doubt you did in fact receive a significant dose of radiation.

In any case, best wishes to your health.

c1ue, given even my near-existent knowledge on chemotherapy, I can tell you that you are oh so totally wrong. Your posts are usually much better informed.

To my understanding, chemotherapy is the use of toxic chemicals to kill cancer cells, while radiation therapy is the use of radioactive nuclides to do the same.

You could term a radioactive nuclide as toxic, but its function isn't chemical.

Then again, I doubt most lay-people would give a crap about a correct terminology, and most people recognize chemotherapy as positive, while radiation therapy has the 'boogeyman' aspect to it.

Hence my question.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

How can you say he is wrong if you do not even have any knowledge?There are doctors on this forum for sure, but as far as I knowChemotherapy= chemicals Radiation Therapy = Radioactive.Very small (negligible) amounts of radiation are used in diagnostic injections.

Good point, but few months ago I was at the hospital at the very moment "chemotherapy" was administered to a familly member; the stuff was indeed radioactive with all the associated radioactive labelling. The nurses also had to wear protective gear as well. Thus, unless the doctors are using the wrong terminology, I associate chemo with potentially radioactive treatment (now I am not saying that all chemo is radioactive, but to say that they are not radioactive is incorrect).

[LargoWinch]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

To my understanding, chemotherapy is the use of toxic chemicals to kill cancer cells, while radiation therapy is the use of radioactive nuclides to do the same.You could term a radioactive nuclide as toxic, but its function isn't chemical. Then again, I doubt most lay-people would give a crap about a correct terminology, and most people recognize chemotherapy as positive, while radiation therapy has the 'boogeyman' aspect to it.Hence my question.

c1ue, it appears that the misunderstanding is about terminology, but your point to cityqat exploited that very issue, hence the confusion generated by your argument.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

c1ue, it appears that the misunderstanding is about terminology, but your point to cityqat exploited that very issue, hence the confusion generated by your argument.

The terminology is very clear, but clearly the usage is not.

However, I asked the question not to interrogate, but to learn. That's why I explicitly noted that I do not have expertise on this issue.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Thank you for the information. I would note several items:

1) A label denoting radioactivity doesn't really convey much information beyond that there is some radioactivity. It could be very little (medical tracers) or very much (processed plutonium).

2) MRIs do not involve nuclear fission related radiation. Angiograms and PET scans do involve X-rays or gamma rays, while brain scans can be MRI and/or PET/X-ray.

I don't doubt you had a significant exposure to radiation. The isolation you were put through seems motivated by the precautionary principle; it wouldn't surprise me that you were actually injected with radioactive iodine 131 or some such as the 'marker' - and it was expected to decay in a week (I131 half-life = 8 days).

I would lastly note that it seems the radiation levels you underwent were deemed acceptable for you because of the advanced state of your cancer. A single chest CT - according to wiki - is about 5 mSv of radiation exposure. Between the PET markers (emit gamma rays), and the many X-rays, and the drug, no doubt you did in fact receive a significant dose of radiation.

In any case, best wishes to your health.



To my understanding, chemotherapy is the use of toxic chemicals to kill cancer cells, while radiation therapy is the use of radioactive nuclides to do the same.

You could term a radioactive nuclide as toxic, but its function isn't chemical.

Then again, I doubt most lay-people would give a crap about a correct terminology, and most people recognize chemotherapy as positive, while radiation therapy has the 'boogeyman' aspect to it.

Hence my question.

For the people I know who have been through both chemo and radiation (including my late wife), the chemo is far the worse. I know a number (because of my age) who are currently undergoing one or both. They all agree that the chemo can and usually does cause terrible side affects, while radiation is much milder in its side affects.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Hi Cityqat:

The opinion that my brother gave me was that you are being treated, not for cancer, but for M.S. He thought they were using a variation of their normal M.S. treatment on you, experimentally. But he said the treatment you were receiving was not a cancer treatment per se..... If my bro is right, that is good news.

My brother also said that taking radiation in high dosage would increase your risk of cancer. This is where the problem with cancer risk from radiation begins: with high dosages which the body can not repair on the cellular level. So, you might discuss this issue with your doctors..... Maybe an alternate treatment course for M.S. might be found.

I hope this is helpful.

Love, Starving Steve

[cityqat]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Hi Cityqat:

The opinion that my brother gave me was that you are being treated, not for cancer, but for M.S. He thought they were using a variation of their normal M.S. treatment on you, experimentally.

This is *exactly* what it was. It was my only stab in the dark at seeing another day - an experimental treatment. I am still at "high risk of Leukoencephalopathy" as a result of my treatment (according to my neurologist). She said that I am "not out of the clear - yet".

At the time of my treatments, I was taking all sorts of drugs that were radioactive via injection.

The good news of it all? I still have a strong heart muscle and I'm still walking. yay!

Thanks dad - love ya
Cityqat

[LargoWinch]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

This is *exactly* what it was. It was my only stab in the dark at seeing another day - an experimental treatment. I am still at "high risk of Leukoencephalopathy" as a result of my treatment (according to my neurologist). She said that I am "not out of the clear - yet".

At the time of my treatments, I was taking all sorts of drugs that were radioactive via injection.

The good news of it all? I still have a strong heart muscle and I'm still walking. yay!

Thanks dad - love ya
Cityqat

For what it is worth; good luck to you cityqat.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

This is *exactly* what it was. It was my only stab in the dark at seeing another day - an experimental treatment. I am still at "high risk of Leukoencephalopathy" as a result of my treatment (according to my neurologist). She said that I am "not out of the clear - yet".

At the time of my treatments, I was taking all sorts of drugs that were radioactive via injection.


The good news of it all? I still have a strong heart muscle and I'm still walking. yay!

Thanks dad - love ya
Cityqat

Unless you have cancer already, I would be concerned about being injected with a substance that exposes you to a high level of radiation. That is what my brother was concerned about as well. He found that odd in your treatment, because that is risky as far as safety is concerned.

Whereas, small exposures to radiation are harmless, even over a lifetime, because all living-things have evolved to cope with small exposures of radiation, it is when a threshold is crossed and you receive a large exposure to radiation, especially in the blood stream that your cancer risk increases. I would discuss that with your doctors. This is what immediately concerned my brother in this treatment.

Good luck in sorting this out with your doctors.

As always, love Dad.

[Shakespear]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Whereas, small exposures to radiation are harmless, even over a lifetime, because all living-things have evolved to cope with small exposures of radiation, it is when a threshold is crossed and you receive a large exposure to radiation, especially in the blood stream that your cancer risk increases.

Reading things like this by you really makes me wonder where you are coming from. What comes to my mind is "No sh%t Sherlock". The river of radiation from Fukushima is what "small" or "large" exposure? The planet will adapt to it nicely and it will be all behind us in no time?

And the deaths from Chernobyl and Fukashima's earthquake-caused mishap, where are they?

Stuff like this just get me in knots as it is shows in my opinion a skewed understanding of the problem.

If anyone believes the lies and rubbish about cancers and mutations coming from radiation at either the Chernobyl or Fukishima site, please show me all of the deaths, tumors, mutations and a few one-eyed monsters that have been born there, too. Show me the evidence, not the spin from the environmental movement to-day.

The link I previously posted should help you with that one.

[cbr]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

I believe I have hit every link on this thread, and have yet to find credible evidence of serious health problems tied to radiation exposure, other than a small number of first responders to Chernobyl, and anecdotal claims of catastrophe. Sure Marie Curie died early. 2 guys in blue jeans with a hypercritical plutonium cantaloupe on sitting on their card table in Los Alamos died of acute poisoning a few days later. The rest of the guys in the room were fine. Yet the media still is calling Fukushima a huge disaster because of radiation that will kill japan or the planet. I hope they are wrong and I am pretty damned sure they are.

It looks to me like a couple of square miles of Japan will be unsafe to live in for a long time, but they'll be giving tours of the four reactors in 10 years and it will be a wildlife refuge.

Do I want to go there? No. But do I recognize the benefits of one of the cleanest, safest and most efficient technologies ever invented? Sure. More people die in coal mines in one year than have ever died from accidental radiation exposure.

[cjppjc]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

For what it is worth; good luck to you cityqat.

Yes. Good luck.