Evaluation of the current status of the eye lens radiation exposure in an Interventional Radiology department.


Following recent epidemiological studies, which showed tissue reactions from ionizing radiation at significantly lower doses, the 2013/59 EURATOM Directive of 5th December 2013 lowered the limit on the equivalent dose to the eye lens from 150 mSv to 20 mSv per year. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, it is considered appropriate to perform a timely dose monitoring by using specific dosimeters.

Analysis of the current state of the eye lens exposures during interventional procedures. The survey aimed at assessing the degree of information available to the exposed workers as regards lowering the dose limit in Interventional Radiology departments of some hospitals in Campania (Southern Italy).

The equivalent dose was assessed, over a period of 90 days, using specific Hp dosimeters(3), placed sideways with regard to prescription eye glasses. The level of awareness of the new dose limit among operators was assessed using a questionnaire.

The values of the equivalent dose to the lens of the eye for the I and II Operators were found to be <150 mSv/year but for the I Operator a value of 54 mSv/year was obtained, ie higher than 20 mSv/year, that is the new limit of the equivalent dose according to 2013/59 EURATOM. The initial results of the questionnaire from 52 exposed workers, of which 46 (88%) were from exposure category A and 6 (12%) from category B, showed a low level of information (19%).

The results highlight not only the importance of using specific devices for individual protection but also the importance of the level of training and information the exposed medical staff are given concerning the new regulations.

Invisible harm from ionizing radiation

Besides the terrible effects of the burst of light that causes eye damage, the heat that sets everything flammable on fire, the electromagnetic pulse that knocks out all electronic devices, and the blast that produces winds with ten times the force of a hurricane, demolishing everything, the detonation of nuclear weapons also leads to the emission of large amounts of ionizing radiation, which has serious deleterious effects on humans and many other species. Ionizing radiation is, in fact, a lurking danger as we cannot see it, we cannot smell it, we cannot hear it, and we cannot feel it immediately. But we certainly get harmed from it.

Chinese medicines tested by Curtin University researchers.

To reduce exposure to ionizing radiation and the risk of deleterious effects, we doctors usually warn our patients against having frequent examinations or procedures that involve x-rays. That is because x-rays are ionizing radiation that can harm your body in the same ways as radiation emitted by nuclear detonations. The main difference is that, for medical purposes, the radiation is applied in a controlled way.

The international standard unit for the dose of ionizing radiation is the Sievert. National guidelines in many countries warn against people having a cumulative dose of ionizing radiation exceeding 0.001 Sievert/year.  The dose from a full body CT scan is 0.01 – 0.03 Sievert.


The ionizing radiation to which everybody in the vicinity of a nuclear detonation is exposed is so high and immediate that measuring in Sievert does not have much meaning. Such exposures are measured in Gray, where five Gray is reckoned to be lethal to 50% of those exposed (LD50). Even though these types of exposures are not directly comparable, for the common types of ionizing radiation, 1 Gray equals approximately 1.3 Sievert.

The intensity of the radiation at the epicenter of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki was estimated to be 320 Gray; one kilometer away it was 7.83 Gray; two kilometers away it was 0.13 Gray. The first two exposures are lethal; the third is about 130 times above the recommended yearly dose for humans.  In an attempt to transform the radiation from a nuclear explosion into a standardized dose estimate, the highest reading of ionizing radiation from the fallout from the Trinity bomb, 32 km away from the detonation, and 3 hours later, was 0.190 Sievert/hour which equals 1.700 Sievert/year. There is evidence that a single dose of about five Sievert may be lethal. Cancer risk in general is reckoned to increase by approximately 5.5% for every Sievert/year.

Ionizing radiation and, in particular, gamma radiation, can penetrate tissue and cause harm throughout the body. Cells that have rapid life cycles are the most susceptible to acute damage. If the dose is high enough, the irradiated cells are simply killed by the radiation. That knowledge is used in all kinds of radiotherapy. The most susceptible cells are those of the central nervous system, blood cells, gamete cells, and barrier cells in the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, symptoms of acute radiation illness are drowsiness and convulsions, anemia and bleeding, and loss of body fluid by bleeding and through the gut. Patients are seen more or less unconscious with skin hemorrhages and bleeding out of every opening of the body. No treatment is available apart for attempts for symptomatic relieve.

Long term effects of too much ionizing radiation include congenital malformations from genetic damage to gamete cells, and an increased risk of different types of cancer as seen in the cohorts of survivors from the  atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the past 70 years.

Detonation of a nuclear bomb generates both direct ionizing radiation from the explosion and also huge amounts of radioactive contamination that can spread with the wind into the atmosphere and precipitate as “fallout” onto land or water. The same can happen as a consequence of nuclear reactor disasters, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. Such radioactive fallout is immediately deleterious to both humans and animals and can make large areas of land uninhabitable, unpastoral, and uncultivable for decades.

Ionizing radiation is normally present in nature from many sources in the Earth’s crust. Humans and animals have evolved to endure small amounts of ionizing radiation, with an assumed (but nevertheless controversial) “safe” dose of less than 0.001 Sievert/year. That is a fine and tender balance that should not be disturbed by the emission of unnecessary and dangerous  ionizing radiation anywhere into the environment, whether by nuclear weapons or other human activities.

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Detects GI Cancer Without Radiation

Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (WB-DWI) is a reliable alternative to positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for detecting gastrointestinal cancers without the ionizing radiation, according to new research from China.

Both PET/CT and WB-DWI accurately detect tumor recurrence and metastasis in gastrointestinal cancer. But WB-DWI costs less than PET/CT and lacks ionizing radiation, the study authors reported online November 17 in Gastroenterology Report.

“WB-DWI can detect early-stage pathological changes, especially in the area of brain and liver, and this is very encouraging. PET-CT has a high ionizing radiation, but WB-DWI can avoid the harm completely,” wrote senior author Dr. Zhiyang Zhou of The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China, in email to Reuters Health.

“At the same time, WB-DWI is fast, reproducible, more economical, without injected drugs, free-breathing, and also suitable for cancer screening and physical examination of healthy populations,” he added.

WB-DWI may in the foreseeable future become a reliable alternative tool for staging cancer, the study authors wrote.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues compared WB-DWI to 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET/CT, and they also looked into the change of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) between metastatic and normal tissues.

Their 28 patients (20 males, mean age 50) had stomach, esophageal, or colorectal cancer, confirmed by gastroscope or endoscopic biopsy, with suspected tumor recurrence or metastasis.

These patients, and 18 healthy volunteers, underwent WB-DWI examination with a PET/CT-based reference for comparison and were followed for 3 to 6 months. No patients received chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery during the study period.

Two radiologists and a nuclear medicine physician reviewed the WB-DWI and PET/CT images, and the agreement between their evaluations was measured using kappa statistics. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were also analyzed, and the ADC values between metastatic and normal tissues were compared.
The authors found no statistically significant differences in the overall diagnostic performances of PET/CT (accuracy 98.9%; sensitivity 95.2%; specificity 99.8%; positive predictive value 98.9%; negative predictive value 98.9%) and WB-DWI (accuracy 95.9%; sensitivity 81.7%; specificity 99.1%; positive predictive value 95.0%; negative predictive value 96.1%).

WB-DWI and PET/CT showed agreement (kappa=0.877) for detecting recurrence and distant metastasis. The difference in ADC values between the tissues of normal healthy volunteers and metastases in lymph nodes, liver and bones were significant (P<0.05).

Dr. Zhou wrote in an email that WB-DWI can be a useful tool to improve patient diagnosis and treatment and advised radiologists to “carefully interpret the data from this technology and provide clinicians and patients with information important to patient management.”

Sea salt and baking soda, best all natural remedy for curing radiation exposure and cancer.

If you have been exposed to any form of radiation, either for medical diagnostic purposes (fluoroscopy/mammography/other medical x-ray exams) or in the course of radiotherapy treatment, or if you are otherwise concerned by excessive radiation exposure, overload or poisoning (such as living near a nuclear reactor facility, working with diagnostic radiological equipment/in the nuclear processing industries/uranium mining/uranium or plutonium processing), or if you have been exposed to radioactive particles or higher ionizing radiation doses stemming from other sources such as depleted uranium (DU), testing of atomic weapons, frequent flights in higher altitudes, a nuclear disaster (radiation fallout from the Japan nuclear power plants) etc., here are a number of tips and suggested remedies how to naturally help your body excrete damaging radioactive elements (e.g. strontium and radioactive iodine) or detoxify their noxious byproducts such as free radicals as well as deal with radiation burns.

If you are having any kind of radiation treatments, macrobiotic is the cure.  Macrobiotics is very effective in curing radiation sickness and cancer.

If you are diagnosed with cancer and you want to survive the cancer avoid any and all exposure to radiation treatment. Radiation treatment of any kind is what actually kills people diagnosed with cancer.  Exposure to radiation causes a cascade of free radicals that wreak havoc on the body. Free radicals damages DNA, protein, and fats. Free radical damage has been clinically proven to be a major contributor to cancer.  That being said, people don’t die of cancer, they die of radiation poisoning.  The repeated exposure to radiation through so-called treatment overwhelms the body’s immune system. Cancer doesn’t cause hair loss for cancer patients, the radiation treatment is solely responsible for that. Cancer doesn’t cause weight loss, the radiation treatment causes that because it suppresses your appetite. Cancer doesn’t cause a cancer patient to become very weak and sick, the radiation treatment poisons the body and makes them very weak and sick.

According to Michio and Aveline Kushi, in his book Macrobiotic Diet, Michio Kushi states: ‘At the time of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945, Tatsuichiro Akizuki, M.D., was director of the Department of Internal Medicine at St. Francis Hospital in Nagasaki. Most patients in the hospital, located one mile from the center of the blast, survived the initial effects of the bomb, but soon after came down with symptoms of radiation sickness from the radioactivity that had been released. Dr. Akizuki fed his staff and patients a strict macrobiotic diet of brown rice, miso* and tamari soy sauce soup, wakame and other sea vegetables, Hokkaido pumpkin, and sea salt and prohibited the consumption of sugar and sweets. As a result, he saved everyone in his hospital, while many other survivors in the city perished from radiation sickness.’”

In case you missed it the secret to surviving all forms of radiation exposure is sea salt. If you are concerned about the radiation fallout from the Japan nuclear plants disaster or if you had an X-ray (from hospitals and airport screening) or radiation treatments for cancer, soak your body in sea salt (not iodized table salt) baths to help pull out the radiation from your body.

If you were diagnosed with mouth or throat cancer and you were subjected to deadly radiation treatments gargling with baking soda mixed in water will help neutralize the radiation.

Baking soda is so powerful in curing radiation contamination that at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, researcher Don York has used baking soda to clean soil contaminated with uranium. Sodium bicarbonate binds with uranium, separating it from the dirt; so far, York has removed as much as 92 percent of the uranium from contaminated soil samples.  Still not convinced?  Would it help to know that the United States Army recommends the use of baking soda to protect the kidneys from radiation damage.

Radiation is very toxic. Exposure to radiation of any amount is harmful to your body. Exposure to radiation through x-rays (hospitals and airport screening) or any of the so-called cancer treatments are the most dangerous source of radiation poisoning. X-rays and radiation cancer treatments are far deadlier than radiation fallout because the exposure is concentrated and frequent.

To pull the radiation poison out of the body, try bathing in half a cup of sea salt and half a cup of baking soda. Soak for at least 20-30 minutes, every day for three weeks or every other day for six weeks. . . or go on a vacation to the West Indies or South Pacific and swim in the ocean every day for three weeks! Why the Indies or South Pacific? Because of the higher concentration of sea salt.  Where is the best place on Earth to go for curing yourself of radiation?  The Dead Sea.   The Dead Sea salt content is four times that of most world’s oceans.  Sea salt draws the radiation out of the body.

Can’t afford to travel to the Dead Sea and cure yourself of the radiation poison from nuclear plant fallout, x-rays and radiation cancer treatment?  A tiny pinch of good quality sea salt in several glasses of distilled water each day will provide one with all the minerals and trace elements you  need to rid your body of the radiation and stay healthy.

Can’t stomach sea salt? The amino acid, cysteine also protects against the damaging effects of radiation by terminating the free radicals produced by ionizing radiation. Cysteine, together with methionine, cystine, and their derivatives, is numbered among the “sulphurated amino acids” due to the fact that these amino acids contain sulfur in addition to carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.

Simple Steps to Help Protect Against Radiation Exposure.

Our lives are so very busy that sometimes it seems that worrying about one more environmental health threat is too much to bear.  But there are some simple steps to take on a daily basis that can help to protect our internal environment from man-made radiation.


When considering radiation exposure it’s crucial to understand the Principle of Selective Uptake, as explained in nutritionist Sara Shannon’s book Radiation Protective Foods.  Simply put, when we load and maintain adequate stores of vitamins and minerals in our systems, the unhealthy minerals (think heavy metals and radionuclides) are less likely to be absorbed. Stable elements in our diet are similar to unstable and radioactive elements, the body doesn’t know the difference at first. If we have a sufficient amount of the stable type stored in our system, we won’t absorb their radioactive counterparts as readily. Just as we’ve heard that taking potassium iodide helps to protect the thyroid against radiation, the same principle applies to calcium, magnesium and other healthy minerals that are required so that Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 to name a few, won’t be readily attracted to the bones, heart, and other organs.  There is always a point to consider where the total body burden could potentially be too high to maintain a healthy state, but steps can be taken on a daily basis to help manage toxins while we also address the problem at it’s core.

Taking a high quality, digestible multivitamin and mineral supplement formulation takes some of the guesswork out of the equation while helping to keep the body from a depleted state.   While vitamins have been generally given more attention,  healthy minerals must not be overlooked and are just as critical for human health.  (Due to reports of radiation contamination from Fukushima Daiichi, please examine labels carefully to ensure that the iodine is not sourced from kelp, and that omega 3′s are plant based and not from fish, especially tuna.)

Ms. Shannon deserves a huge amount of credit for both her first book, Diet for the Atomic Age and her updated book cited above, Radiation Protective Foods.  She also understands that it’s not enough try to protect ourselves from the effects of man-made radiation. Indeed the problem must be addressed at it’s very source ~ the nuclear power industry. Radiation is not only coming from Fukushima, far from it.  Every operating nuclear reactor in the world emits radiation via planned “batch releases” as an inherent part of reactor functionality.

In addition to a multivitamin and mineral supplement, there are some other tools to keep on hand for an immune system regimen including Vitamin C, apple pectin fiber, fresh garlic, chlorella, spirulina and zeolite tincture.  Be sure to research the source by calling the company or searching online.

And last (for now) but not least, always be sure to maintain a positive outlook.  Repetitive stress endangers us by our lowering our immunity. When dealing with stress responses, the body’s natural healing functions are essentially disabled.  Daily meditation, even for five minutes, has been proven to help reduce stress and improve health.  Prayer or giving thanks to an entity larger then ourselves has also been shown to be beneficial to our health. And giving thanks before eating meals helps redirect us away from a stress response to a more healthy way of being.

Simple, small steps to take to give us, our families and communities a fighting chance in a stressful world.

Extreme X-Rays.

Veasey is one of the few people who know how hard it is to get a crisp x-ray of a vacuum tube.1 For starters, the object has very little mass to absorb the radiation. And because the edges of the tube curve away from the film, the x-rays get scattered about, causing distortion. So Veasey shot this tube in a series of 10-second bursts. The succession of blasts builds up the energy necessary to capture the fine details, while their short duration keeps background radiation from clouding the picture.

Not many photographers need a linear accelerator. But Nick Veasey isn’t your average shutterbug. Instead of tweaking f-stops and light boxes, he fine-tunes the speed and frequency of energy pulses emitted by a Russian-made tabletop particle turbocharger. That’s because Veasey doesn’t work with traditional cameras and film — he works with x-rays.

The 46-year-old Englishman estimates that over the past decade or so he’s x-rayed more than 4,000 objects: flowers, football players, alarm clocks, tractors, even a 777. “I’m interested in how things work, and x-rays show what’s happening under the surface,” he says. “Plus, they look cool.” To get his pictures, Veasey uses industrial x-ray machines typically employed in art restoration (to examine oil paintings), electronics manufacturing (to inspect circuit boards), and the military (to check tanks for stress fractures).

Working with high doses of radiation isn’t always easy. To minimize a patient’s radiation exposure, medical x-ray techs grab their blurry stills in a fraction of a second; Veasey needs to bombard his subjects with ionizing radiation for as long as 12 minutes to get crisp shots. So to capture human forms, Veasey works with either skeletons in rubber suits (normally used to train radiologists) or cadavers that have been donated to science. When a corpse becomes available, he has at most eight hours to pose and shoot before rigor mortis sets in.

Veasey’s images have brought him fine-art commissions, big-name commercial clients, and a long list of professional honors. Now he also has a book-length collection called X-ray coming out in October. But Veasey says he’s just getting started. He is currently building his own $200,000 studio with 35-inch-thick, lead-lined concrete walls. In there, he’ll be able to see through anything.

To assemble this office building scene, which includes everything from a potted plant to steel elevator cogs, Veasey employed all three of his x-ray machines. Each item was captured individually (he used only one skeleton “model,” which he set in different poses) and then composited onto a master image. It took 200 x-rays to create the entire scene, including 26 shots just to depict the skeletons shaking hands.

The largest x-ray film is only 14 inches wide, so to capture items bigger than that — like this pair of DJ decks measuring 4 feet across — Veasey stitches together several shots in Photoshop. That’s also where he adds color to the black-and-white images for “technical grace.” The challenge with electronics, Veasey says, is the way the chaotic interiors complicate the image.

Veasey borrowed a cargo x-ray scanner normally used to search trucks crossing into the US from Mexico to create this image. Once he scanned the vehicle, Veasey used Photoshop to populate it with skeletons and objects he shot separately (yes, he x-rayed a fedora). A hospital in White Plains, New York, commissioned the piece to celebrate the opening of its new orthopedic facility. The medical center’s PR team had a promotional bus wrapped in the image drive around White Plains for nearly two months.

Does Diagnostic Radiation Increase Breast Cancer Risk in Women with BRCA Mutations?

European questionnaire-based study leaves the question unanswered.

Because ionizing radiation can damage DNA, diagnostic x-ray exposure in individuals with defects in DNA repair mechanisms (such as those associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations) could lead to excess risk for cancer. Investigators surveyed women with documented BRCA1/2 mutations in the Netherlands, France, and the U.K. to evaluate any association between radiation exposure and later development of breast cancer. Questionnaires were administered to BRCA1/2 carriers from 2006 to 2009 to elicit their recollections of the type and number of diagnostic procedures they had received in their lifetimes. Estimates of radiation doses to the breast during each type of diagnostic procedure (mammography, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography and conventional radiography of the chest or shoulder) were used to determine total cumulative dose. Cases that were diagnosed >5 years before completion of the study questionnaire were excluded to prevent survival bias.

Of the 1993 participants, 43% (mean age, 49.7) had received diagnoses of breast cancer. Self-reported exposure to any form of diagnostic radiation before age 30 was associated with significantly higher risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.20–3.00), and risk rose with increasing cumulative dose. A history of mammography before age 30 was associated with nonsignificantly increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.85–2.40). No evidence of excess risk was found for diagnostic radiation exposure between ages 30 and 39.

Comment: As with other epidemiologic studies of diagnostic radiation and risk for breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, the results of this study are inconclusive. The retrospective questionnaire design is subject to recall bias, especially given that women were asked to recollect events occurring up to 30 years earlier. Moreover, no attempt was made to document the date and type of radiologic tests that were reported. Furthermore, estimates of cumulative radiation dose were hypothetical and subject to wide variation based on factors in individuals as well as facilities. Until further data are obtained, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendation of screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in BRCA mutation carriers beginning at age 25 should be followed.

Source: Journal Watch Oncology and Hematology