It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Radiation. Did you know?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I was researching radiation since a family member who recently completed Chemotheropy is now scheduled for 33 radiation treatments.

In my research, I was interested in how radiopharmaceutical doses were derrived.

That is when I first heard of "Reference Man".

At this link
My interest heightened when I read:

For medical treatment and diagnosis, radioactivity is often administered to a patient as part of the process. In Publication 53, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has summarized the effective dose equivalent associated with unit administrations of various radiopharmaceuticals. These factors are useful for estimating the radiation dose to healthy individuals who resemble "Reference Man". (For your information, Reference Man is a hypothetical individual with well-defined values for daily intakes of air and water or carrier elements, breathing rates, excretion rates, organ sizes, metabolic features, and other physical parameters.


I then wanted to see what was up with Publication 53 from the ICRP.

Here
I found that the publication:

presents biokinetic models and best estimates of biokinetic data for some 120 individual radiopharmaceuticals, giving estimated absorbed doses, including the range of variation to be expected in pathological states, for adults, children and the fetus. Absorbed dose estimates are needed in clinical diagnostic work for judging the risk associated with the use of specific radiopharmaceuticals, both for comparison with the possible benefit of the investigation and to help in giving adequate information to the patient. These estimates provide guidance to ethics committees having to decide upon research projects involving the use of radioactive substances in volunteers who receive no individual benefit from the study. This report supplements current and forthcoming ICRP reports, in particular ICRP Publication 52, Protection of the Patient in Nuclear Medicine.
...
Last update: 25 Feb 2009


Since I wasn't going to purchase the book, I clicked the Table of Contents link, which opened the same page.

Concerned about how "doses" were determined, I did a bit more research and found some disturbing information.

In a review,
Radiation doses and risks from internal emitters.

I read that,

Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division, CRCE, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RQ, UK. john.harrison@hpa.org.uk

This review updates material prepared for the UK Government Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE) and also refers to the new recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and other recent developments. Two conclusions from CERRIE were that ICRP should clarify and elaborate its advice on the use of its dose quantities, equivalent and effective dose, and that more attention should be paid to uncertainties in dose and risk estimates and their implications. The new ICRP recommendations provide explanations of the calculation and intended purpose of the protection quantities, but further advice on their use would be helpful. The new recommendations refer to the importance of understanding uncertainties in estimates of dose and risk, although methods for doing this are not suggested.


This lead me to research CERRIE.

This is what I found.
Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal Emitters

A link to a report in .pdf format is on this page.

In the MINORITY REPORT published,

I found the most disturbing information yet. Worthy of including below.


There is strong evidence that current models of hazard from radioactivity inside the human body underestimate risks by at least 100 and possibly up to 1000 times.

The Low Level Radiation Campaign brought this to the Government’s attention and in 2001 Ministers set up CERRIE to investigate. LLRC
was represented on the Committee.

The Minority Report was published in September 2004 because last minute intimidation by Government lawyers excluded the LLRC’s dissenting views from the Committee’s final report.

Radiation “dose” is meaningless.
Safety standards for radioactivity in the environment are in meltdown.

This is because the old idea of radiation “dose” as a whole body average is now seen to be nonsense, like thinking a cigarette burn couldn’t hurt because a nice warm bath would transfer more heat to your whole body.

Some types of radioactive substance, once embedded in body tissue, irradiate the few cells near them, treatening mutation, while the rest of the body gets no dose.

Plutonium particles are the extreme example.

The CERRIE Majority Report accepts that dose is sometimes
meaningless.
Even the International Commission on Radiological Protection admits it.

This is a problem for official bodies like the Environment
Agency because they depend solely on “dose” to quantify
risk. If dose is meaningless they can not reassure the public
about the risks of radioactive discharges, or recycling and
incinerating contaminated materials, or the use of Depleted
Uranium weapons.

The nuclear mafia’s fallback is: Ok, dose is meaningless
but it doesn’t make any difference; there’s no evidence that
radioactivity in the environment is any more dangerous
than we always said. In fact there’s plenty of evidence, as
we show in the Minority Report.

The persistent excess of childhood leukaemia near Sellafield is an example; doses were 300 times too small to cause the number of cases found. The sharp increase in infant leukaemia in several countries after Chernobyl demonstrates a similar error.

The nuclear project cannot function without freedom to dump and pollute. That’s why the Government had to keep our statements out of an official report. Its Majority Report denies the evidence of a large error but it concludes that scientific uncertainties could mean risks have been underestimated.

Ironically, CERRIE’s “uncertainties” are so big (many thousands - read the report, not the spin!) that the 300-fold error looks quite modest (see New Scientist letters 11th September 2004).

In the short time since the Majority and Minority Reports were published, scientific journals have published even more evidence; cancer rates in north Sweden and Belarus have risen by 40% since Chernobyl.

The conventional risk model says any increased cancer risk wouldn’t happen until 2006 at the earliest and it would be undetectably small anyway. So the authorities ignore it.


WOW!

Disposal is another concern. after reading another report from Vonna L. Ordaz, Assistant for Operations, Office of the EDO, released Feb. 29, 2008


Office of Information Services (OIS)
Items of Interest
Week Ending February 22, 2008
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Requests Received During the Period of February 15, 2008 through February 21, 2008:
Gemstone “exempt distribution” licenses issued to the following: HBM Virginia LLC, Ideal Source Quality Assurance, and International Isotopes, copies of licenses, supporting documentation
FOIA/PA-2008-0122
Development of regulation 10 CFR 20.303(d), total quantity limits for discharge to the sanitary sewer, original technical basis initially promulgated

and more...
I wanted to see this regulation.

a licensee may release up to one curie per year into any one sewerage system


no txt space left




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Holy bloody shizzle, now I realize, why our greens are so up in arms over the plans for a new nuclear power plant in Switzerland.

If radiation is really THAT much more dangerous than estimated, then it's time to rethink the whole nuclear deal.

Edit: Typo.

[edit on 27/2/2009 by Swordbeast]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


When I read that I thought of a quote I once read about radiation...

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

Radiation is bad stuff. I would never willingly opt in for "doses".



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew Radiation is bad stuff. I would never willingly opt in for "doses".


Well, radiation therapy cured my prostate cancer, and quite frankly, I'd do it all over again. And I'd advise my loved ones to do the same if need be.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by StrangeBrew Radiation is bad stuff. I would never willingly opt in for "doses".


Well, radiation therapy cured my prostate cancer, and quite frankly, I'd do it all over again. And I'd advise my loved ones to do the same if need be.



I've had more than one friend "cured" of prostate cancer as well after radiation. Once they had a testicle removed that was the next step. They are now cured.

I wish you and all those in similar circumstances the best. Of course I do. I simply wouldn't be able to proceed the same way at this point.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by StrangeBrew Radiation is bad stuff. I would never willingly opt in for "doses".


Well, radiation therapy cured my prostate cancer, and quite frankly, I'd do it all over again. And I'd advise my loved ones to do the same if need be.

I wish you and all those in similar circumstances the best. Of course I do. I simply wouldn't be able to proceed the same way at this point.


Two points...
1) Look up brachytherapy. find out what a Gleason Score is.
2) Don't presume what you'll say when you stare down the devil.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Radiation therapy put my Hodgkins Disease into remission for five years (Saved my life).

Chemotherapy took care of the reoccurrance. That was 21 years ago. I've been fine since but because I had a reoccurance it can't be called a cure technically. I'm OK with that.

I had good hearted but ill-informed friends insist that I should stay away from "conventional treatments" and go with this (or that). I know of others that followed that kind of advice. Most of them aren't here, I am. I'm satisfied with my choice.

Radiation can take life. It can save life.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhageI had good hearted but ill-informed friends insist that I should stay away from "conventional treatments" and go with this (or that). I know of others that followed that kind of advice. Most of them aren't here, I am. I'm satisfied with my choice.


I hear ya. I went to a naturopath and asked what would ameliorate the side effects of the radiation, and she fixed me up. But the radiation kicked the crap outta the cancer. 'Course the radiation trefoil I had tattooed on my arm helped.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I looked up a "brachytherapy" and the first hits were;

mayoclinic.com
www.radiologyinfo.org
cancer.ca
and Wiki

I've seen and understand the "seeds" and small radioactive rods.

This is exactly what I'm referring to. Being on a site such as this, a board thread such as this, is a good place to discuss these matters.

We here, are here because we're privy maybe to what others aren't about the world around us and our reality. Whether it be the energy industry, education, money, religion, medicine, health, politics, media, we have run the gamut.

Anyone of us can be completely convinced from our research about a particular topic. And coming from here, it's not the mainstream opinion.

For me, all of the above are connected. They all have to do with us directly so, we're responsible for ourselves and our decisions (so far at this point). We have the freedom to explore and share our findings. We also have the freedom to do none of the above.

I've proceeded with the former.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I think I'd take my chances w/ Rick Simpson and his Hemp Oil cure before even considering any kind of radiation.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew We have the freedom to explore and share our findings. We also have the freedom to do none of the above.
I've proceeded with the former.


I don't quite get your point.

Mine is that you can entertain a lot of notions when it's all an academic exercise, but when the doctor says "This will cure you", well then, you sit up and take notice.

I dropped my PSA a little using Budwig and Essiac...but radiation killed the cancer. Say what you will, I stand by my choices, and unless you're in that position, I wouldn't get too huffy.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by -NewSense-
I think I'd take my chances w/ Rick Simpson and his Hemp Oil cure before even considering any kind of radiation.


You have a window of opportunity in treating cancer. In most cases, get it early, you win. Wait, you lose.

Again...you don't know what you'll do til the issue comes up. Trust me on that.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by StrangeBrew We have the freedom to explore and share our findings. We also have the freedom to do none of the above.
I've proceeded with the former.


I don't quite get your point.

Mine is that you can entertain a lot of notions when it's all an academic exercise, but when the doctor says "This will cure you", well then, you sit up and take notice.

I dropped my PSA a little using Budwig and Essiac...but radiation killed the cancer. Say what you will, I stand by my choices, and unless you're in that position, I wouldn't get too huffy.


I understand what you're saying. Until faced with the prognosis and the highest possible professional telling you the way it is, you don't want to gamble with your life.

I completely understand, I haven't faced it but also haven't gotten huffy about it.

My point is, you can explore academically all you like, or you can take responsibility when discovering certain truths that are bigger than you or I. Since I have, I'm obliged to follow my beliefs. Facing death has nothing to do with it.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeBrew My point is, you can explore academically all you like, or you can take responsibility when discovering certain truths that are bigger than you or I. Since I have, I'm obliged to follow my beliefs. Facing death has nothing to do with it.


With all due respect, you don't know how you'll deal with the reaper until you get a whiff of him. And I trust you'll not need to deal with that until you're due.

And until then, it's nothing but an academic exercise.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
This might not be in line with this thread, but what about during WWII, I think it was in Chicago, a hospital was dosing none suspecting patients with Radition under Government sanctions.

This was done because the Government wanted to see what Radition would do to people, to me this is total crap, and total disreguard for the Peoples of these United States.

These Doctors hate to say are still in stone age, there are playing guessing games with peoples lives.

And in saying the doctor cured your Cancer is a untruth, what he did is attemp to remove or destroy problem, not cure.

The doctors told my brother he had cancer to his good fortune his surgery was delayed, when they cut him open it seems they were quite befuddled when they could nolonger find cancer.
Now the biopsy came up possitive before surgery, I ask Doctor where did the Cancer go he said I don't know, we must find some other way to kill him, I will try. They almost did no Cancer but they decide to poke around for 8 hours, but alas he still lived.
I gave him home remendy for 2 weeks prior to the surgery, by the grace of God something worked.

But you know when they found electricty, they thought in would cure everything, you can make limbs grow longer with it, current flow must be in right direction.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex And in saying the doctor cured your Cancer is a untruth, what he did is attemp to remove or destroy problem, not cure.


I'l let my oncologist know you said so. He's gotten all biased and such by going to school, and treating people and incidentals like that.

And does that mean my cancer has not gone away? You are quite certain of that? My, my. Glad we had this little chat.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

With all due respect, you don't know how you'll deal with the reaper until you get a whiff of him. And I trust you'll not need to deal with that until you're due.

And until then, it's nothing but an academic exercise.


Very true. I await my turn. I for one prefer to go in informed rather than leaving the responsibility with the "experts".

In my opinion, cancer and health in general, is too important to leave to the experts.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 


No.

My doctors and the therapy they provided removed the cancer which had invaded my lymph system, spleen, and liver.

I am glad to hear your brother is cancer free.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by googolplex
 


No.

My doctors and the therapy they provided removed the cancer which had invaded my lymph system, spleen, and liver.

I am glad to hear your brother is cancer free.


I am glad the Doctors helped you, but I look at Doctors the same way I look at auto mechanic, there are good ones and bad ones.
You must of found good one.
The Book I read was ( The Cure For All Cancers by Hulda Regehr Clark, Ph.D.,N.D.) she says give her 3 weeks, I thought she was quack but I saw this work just as she said it would.

Good Luck and God Bless



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 



The Register of Ph.D. Degrees conferred by the University of Minnesota of Minnesota July 1956-June 1966, states that (a) Clark received her degree with a major in zoology and a minor in botany, (b) her thesis was titled, "A study of the ion balance of crayfish muscle; evidence for two compartments of cellular potassium," and her University of Saskatchewan degrees were bachelor of arts in 1949 and master of arts in 1950 [1].



For several years, Clark's treatment has been administered at Century Nutrition, a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, where the basic fee for two weeks of "treatment" was $4,500 (plus 10% tax). This figure did not include the cost of a motel room (approximately $210/week); meals ($250/week); blood tests ($70 each); standard diagnostic imaging tests ($40 to $400); dental x-rays (at least $206); "individually tailored" supplements ($400 to $1,500 for a month supply); equipment (about $350); tooth extractions ($80 each); and partial or full dentures ($450).



The Cure for All Cancers states:
All cancers are alike. They are all caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, you must have this parasite. . . .

www.quackwatch.org...

$4,500 (plus expenses) to remove flukes and cure cancer. Quite a deal.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Phage]




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join