Tag: radiation

The Phenomenon of Radon Gas ‘Health Spas’

Photo by Vladyslav Cherkasenko on Unsplash

While radon is commonly known as a radioactive gas that sometimes builds up in basements, people in pain travel to Montana in the US to be surrounded by it. The visitors view the radon exposure as low-dose radiation therapy for a long list of health issues.

But the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization, among others, list the gas as the second-leading cause of lung cancer. Though radiation is used to kill cancer cells, in the US, using low doses for other ailments is disputed – one such debated use is treating respiratory conditions. Clinical trials are testing whether low doses of radiation can help treat COVID patients.

But radon gas is not the same as the targeted radiation in radiotherapy. It can be inhaled, making it particularly dangerous. Sitting in a radon-filled room and radiotherapy are as different as “chalk and cheese,” said Brian Marples, a professor of radiation oncology at the University of Rochester.

“In clinical therapy, we know exactly what the dose is, we know exactly where it’s going,” he said.

Prof Marples said much of the argument for radon’s therapeutic use stems from historical reports, unlike evidence-based research on clinical radiation. However, there is debate as to what level of radon gas exposure is harmful. Another concern is that the radon treatment in the mines is largely unregulated, and bodies like the EPA don’t have the power to mandate limits on radon. 

Nonetheless, each year travelers head to western Montana, where four inactive mines with high levels of radon are within 18 kilometres of one another. Radon gas forms from the radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium in the bedrock and has a short half-life.  In the Merry Widow Health Mine, visitors can bathe in radon-contaminated water or simply sit and work on a puzzle.

For owner Chang Kim, 69, his business helps treat chronic medical conditions such as arthritis or diabetes. Adherents claim radon in low doses creates stress on the body, triggering the immune system to readapt and reduce inflammation.

“The people coming to the mines, they’re not stupid,” Mr Kim said. “People’s lives are made better by them.”

He learned about the mines 14 years ago when his wife, Veronica Kim had developed a connective tissue disease which crumpled her hands and feet. Traditional medicine wasn’t working for her. After takim=ng two sessions a year in the mines ever since, Veronica smiles when she shows her hands.

“They’re not deformed anymore,” she said, adding she’s been able to reduce her use of meloxicam for pain and swelling.

Radon users point to European countries such as Germany, where the controversial radon therapy can still be prescribed for various conditions.

In the US, the EPA maintains that no level of radon exposure is risk-free, noting it is responsible for about 21 000 lung cancer deaths every year. The agency recommends that homes with radon levels of 150 Becquerels (radioactive decays per second) per cubic metre or more should have a radon-reduction system. The EPA derived this value from lower values being subject to false negatives, and it being an achievable level with radon-reduction systems. By contrast, the owners of Montana’s oldest radon therapy mine, Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine, said their mine has an average of about 64 000.

The federal guidelines are “a bunch of baloney” according to Monique Mandali, who lives in Helena, about 40 minutes from the mines, and tries to fit in three sessions at Free Enterprise a year – 25 hours of exposure spread out over 10 days for arthritis in her back.

“People say, ‘Well, you know, but you could get lung cancer.’ And I respond, ‘I’m 74. Who cares at this point?'” she said. “I’d rather take my chances with radon in terms of living with arthritis than with other Western medication.”

Antone Brooks, formerly a scientist at the US Department of Energy and who studied low-dose radiation, is one of those who believes the low dose threshold is excessive.

“If you want to go into a radon mine twice a year, I’d say, OK, that’s not too much,” he said. “If you want to live down there, I’d say that’s too much.”

In the early 1900s, before antibiotics were popularised, small doses of radiation were used to treat pneumonia with reports it relieved respiratory symptoms. Since then, fear has largely kept the therapeutic potential of low-dose radiation untapped, said Dr Mohammad Khan, an associate professor with the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University. But amid the pandemic, health care providers struggling to find treatments as hospital patients lie dying have been giving clinical radiation another look.

Patients who received low doses of radiation to their lungs were weaned off of oxygen and were discharged from hospital sooner than those without the treatment. Dr Khan said more research is necessary, but it could eventually expand clinical radiation’s role for other illnesses.

“Some people think all radiation is the same thing, that all radiation is like the Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombs, but that’s clearly not the case,” Dr Khan explained. “If you put radiation in the hands of the experts and the right people – we use it wisely, we use it carefully – that balances risk and benefits.”

Source: News-Medical.Net

Low-dose Radiation May be Beneficial to Humans

A study has found that cancer rates go down and life expectancy increases in areas of the US with high natural background radiation, flying in the face of decades of accepted theory that low-dose radiation is still harmful.

Natural background radiation exists from sources in the environment. This is the first large-scale study looking at terrestrial radiation (coming from radioactive elements in rocks, which vary across regions) and cosmic radiation (which increases with altitude). The Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) researchers found that life expectancy is approximately 2.5 years longer for those who live in areas of naturally high background radiation vs those who live in areas of low radiation.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis has guided radiation protection policy in the US since the 1960s. This assumes that health risk from radiation is linear and incremental, meaning that there is no safe minimum dose – all ionising radiation is assumed to be harmful. However, numerous studies have contended that radiation at low doses initiates a protective hormesis effect.

Reduced levels of a number of types of cancers were found when in areas of high background radiation levels as opposed to lower. In both sexes, there was a significant decrease in lung, pancreatic, colon and rectal cancers. Among men, there were additional decreases in brain and bladder cancers. However, no decreases in cervix, breast or prostate cancers or leukaemia were observed.

“Decades of scientific theory are potentially being disproven by the remarkable researchers at BGU. These findings might even provide a sense of relief for those who reside in areas in the U.S. with higher-than-average background radiation,” said Doug Seserman, Chief Executive Officer, American Associates, BGU.

Using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation dose calculator, the researchers retrieved data background radiation on all 3,29 US counties. Cancer rate data were retrieved from the United States Cancer Statistics, while life expectancy data were retrieved from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington Medical Center.

“It is reasonable to suggest that a radiation threshold does exist, yet it is higher than the upper limit of the natural background radiation levels in the US (227 mrem/year),” the researchers wrote. “These findings provide clear indications for re-considering the linear no-threshold paradigm, at least within the natural range of low-dose radiation.”

Source: News-Medical.Net

Journal information: David, E., et al. (2021) Background radiation impacts human longevity and cancer mortality: reconsidering the linear no-threshold paradigm. Biogerontology. doi.org/10.1007/s10522-020-09909-4.

Impact of French Nuclear Testing Underestimated

A new report has found that the extent of radiation exposure to people involved in nuclear testing in French Polynesia has been significantly underestimated.

Over 1966 to 1996 at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls in French Polynesia, France conducted An unofficial report has gone through thousands of recently declassified documents, focusing on the impact of three key nuclear tests: Aldébaran, Encelade and Centaure in 1966, 1971 and 1974.
The report suggests that the French government has underestimated fallout by as much as 40%, opening the door for tens of thousands more to claim compensation.

One millisievert (mSv) per annum is the maximum allowable public exposure. There is clear evidence for radiation effects at doses over 100mSv, while doses less than 10mSv are undetectable even in very large epidemiological studies and such low dose effects on human health are controversial. According to the linear-no dose-threshold (LNT) theory, all radiation exposure carries some level of harm.

Last February, a report was sent from Paris to French Polynesia on a cluster of cancers uncovered there, believed to be linked to radiation exposure . Email evidence suggests that at least 2000 of the 6000 military personnel involved in the tests had contracted at least one form of cancer.
It was only in 2010 that France established a compensation claims board for people with one of 23 cancers associated with radiation and who lived in French Polynesia at the time of the tests. However, many claimants do not have the means to access these claims, such as those who live on remote islands.

Faulty and imprecise monitoring equipment impacted the results, which were used to calculate the original dose calculations. The researchers recalculated the estimated doses absorbed by the population based on samples taken by the military at the time, and also using new methods involving meteorological data to plot the spread of radioactive fallout. Some recalculations did not show much change, but a 1966 test produced a level three times higher than the official estimate. Some 11 000 people exposed to the nuclear testing received a dose higher than 5mSv, the researchers found.

Source: The Guardian

Tumour Weakened against Radiation by Tweaking a Certain Protein

The vulnerability of specific tissues to ionising radiation has been linked to the time-varying levels of a tumour-suppressing protein, opening new avenues for cancer combination therapy.

The ability for cells to survive radiation damage has been known to be connected to p53, but tissues with vastly different levels of p53 have been shown to have great differences in sensitivity. In the face of this apparent paradox, researchers from Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research investigated the behaviour of p53 in irradiated tissues.

“Dynamics matter. How things change over time matters,” said co-corresponding author Galit Lahav, the Novartis Professor of Systems Biology at HMS. “Our ability to understand biology is limited when we only look at snapshots. By seeing how things evolve temporally, we gain much richer information that can be critical for dissecting diseases and creating new therapies.”

Ionising radiation randomly damages a cell’s molecular machinery, causing it to initiate cell death if it is too serious. The arbitrator of cellular suicide is p53, which is also involved in tumour suppression. 

The findings opened new avenues for combination cancer therapies, as they discovered that administering a drug that blocks p53 levels from oscillating resulted in tumours in mice being more susceptible to radiation. 
Administering to the mice an experimental anti-cancer drug that inhibits MDM2, a protein which degrades p53, they forced p53 to stay elevated. The large intestine, which is normally radiation resistant, showed increased vulnerability.

Testing out this enhanced vulnerability on human tumours transplanted into mice, a significant tumour shrinkage was seen following radiation and then MDM2 inhibitor administration.

Co-corresponding author Galit Lahav, Novartis Professor of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School explained: “By irradiating first, we force the cancer cells to activate p53, and by adding MDM2 inhibitor on top of that, we can keep p53 active longer. This combination has a much stronger effect than either alone.”

The findings showed the importance of understanding the role of p53 in cancer, the dynamic nature of which is not being looked at in studies testing MDM2. More research into the biological pathways of p53 is called for. 
“For a lab studying p53, cancer is always a major motivation. Our goal is to acquire knowledge to help develop better and more efficient therapies,” Lahav said. “Understanding how p53 behaves over time in different conditions is a critical piece of the puzzle.”

Source: News-Medical.Net

Journal information: Stewart-Ornstein, J., et al. (2021) p53 dynamics vary between tissues and are linked with radiation sensitivity. Nature Communications.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21145-z