Dear Jerry, Jim ,Dr. Gerald Looney and friends:
The CT Total Body Scans is very related to health of the whole people in the world, an so is the SPECT and PET. When I begun to introduce the health effects of chronic radiation could be an effective immunity of cancers in the 1999 ANS meeting in Boston, I did not care much about our finding could elevate the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, but on the chronic radiation could be more important to the medical application. So that I would like now to express more of my opinon based on our finding of chronic radaition is always beneficial to humanity in hoping that this might be helpful to terminate the CT total body Scan contrversy, and to continuously benefit the people.
I do not exactly realize the significances of Dr Gerald luckily had the CT scans in time, his wife did not and died in cancer, and the cost for each of $800-1500 is low or high. But I do know exactly the results obtained by Brenner and Elliston of Coloumbia University are not accurate for reference. Their repoert in the journal of Biologiy indicated each scan could expose about 12 mSv to the recipient. The Japanes atomic bomb survivlrs in low dose range of 5-100 mSv showed a statistical signifacant increase in risk of solid cancers. Their 12 mSv dose received in each scan might be right. but the Japanes survivors in 5-100 mSv range had cancer risk increased is wrong. The 5-100 mSv range of about 33,000 survivors had their leudemia deaths 3 in lower comparing to their spontan!
eous deaths 62, and had their solid cancers deaths 85 in higher comparing to their spontaneous deaths 2710, Both of the lower leukemia and higher solid cancer did not have statistical significance. The only important results of study of the atomic bomb survivorrs obtained by the RERF group, that could positively suppert the LNT hypotheses was that the leukemia deaths did obviously increase in survors in the doses range >1000 mSv ( Radiation Research 146. 1-27. 1996). But such increasing of leukemia could be only observable in radiation received simutaneously in an atomic explosion explosion, usually means in one minute after explosion.
What kind of the biological effects couldl be induced by the dose of about 12 mSv ? Most radiation scientists believe the doses <100 mSv are harmless, but many Japanese scientists asserted they are beneficial to health based on their observation. The experience of the Co-60 contaminated apartments incidnet in Taiwan revealled that chronic radaition or the radiation received in low-dode-rate (< 1 mSv/hr, average about 50 mSv/y ) is always beneficial to humanity, and could immnuized almost of all spontaneous cancer deaths. I do not know exactly what dose-rate of X-ray coudl expose to the whole body, but I believe It must be beneficial to people. If the CT total body Scan x-ray is not like acute radiation from atomic bomb explosio, the CT Total Body Scan not only can detect the hidden cancer, if t!
here is a cancer in developing, and can also immnue the the recipients never have cancer in future. An investigation seems could be done by checking of the cancer mortality of every people who ever had and ever had not constant or annual CT total body Scan. If the people who have CT Scan died in lower cancer mortality, means the X-ray iis beneficail to people, otherwise it is harmful.
The controversy mow might turn to the Co-60 contamination incident in Taiwan. There was such unbelievable incident was believed by all the nuclear scientists and radiaologists from various international conference and journals, but the incredible health effects of the chronic radation received by the people lived in the cntaminated apartments for 21 years, were still not fully recognized and accepted all the NGO and government organizations due to various reasons, though I started to addressed our finding in June 1999 ANS meeting until to Juli 2004 Moscow medical dosimetry meetin. I am a smmal scientist and the finding of our group still under question, but the health effects of radiation in this finding is a imoortant fact which might be highly benefcial to humanity. The scientists in Columbia University believe the LNT derieved from atomic bomb explosion may be preferable to determine the value of the!
CT Scan, SPECT and PET, and all the important regulating organizattion as the FDA, EPA, ANS, HPS, NCRP, ICRP and UNSCEAR are alll confused with LNT, I recommend a simple method to prove it, to engage 10,000 elder American people as volunteer (in age >70 )to receve 50 mSv doses in one year with the dose-rate < 1 mSv/hr. One year later, the elder people might still have about 1000 of the died in cancers (depend on cancer mortality in that district) but it might be greaty reduced if Taiwan experience is right. Trouble is nobody want to be the volunteers, but when they are convenced, they will have 1% possiblity died in cancer next year, but might also coud be immuned from cancer by receiving 50 mSv in hospital, and both the ANS and HPS statements had assuree them, 50 mSv received in one year has no any harmful effects, t!
hey have only gain no loss ,they might want to be volunteer. The real
trouble might come from all the regulating organization, too much factors have to be sonsidenred by them ..............................There is another method is recommended by HPS to have more international scientists to reexamine all the study results of the Co-60 contamination in Taiwan. So called Taiwan is not a UN member, it is not easy to study is just nonsense.
YC Luan Senior Scientist of NuSTA and Consultatn of NBC Society
---------------------------------------------- original message----------------------------------------------------------------
>From: "Jerry Cuttler"
>Reply-To: "Jerry Cuttler"
>To: "cdn-nucl-l" , "ANS Member Exchange Listserv" , "RAD-SCI-L"
>Subject: Importance of CT total body scans, Fw: Letter to the Editor (Wall Street Journal)
>Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:33:40 -0400
>The letter below, from The Wall Street Journal, is very very important. It illustrates how adherence to the fraudulent LNT ideology can impact our very lives! Some people will call Gerald and Nancy 'anecdotes'. I met them several times. I call them case studies -- scientific facts! Nancy Greene was the wife of the renown Toronto CKEY newscaster, Lorne Greene, who became a star in the western TV series, Bonanza. (Read also the editorial opinion in the radiology newsletter, AuntMinnie, using the hyperlink below.)
>Dr. Gerald Looney is a graduate of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore and the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. He has held medical faculty positions at Harvard University, Boston University, the University of Arizona in Tucson, and the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. He is currently an associate clinical professor of medicine/occupational medicine at the University of California, Irvine College of Medicine. He recently retired as medical director of Boeing's military transport division in Long Beach, CA, and currently serves on the Department of Energy's (DOE) physician review panel to examine cases of workers from earlier nuclear facilities who might have occult work-related illness.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: DR. GERALD LOONEY
>To: Albrodsky@aol.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 4:30 PM
>Subject: Letter to the Editor (Wall Street Journal)
>After watching the feeding frenzy on TV and in newspapers following the
>Brenner and Elliston paper publication in RADIOLOGY (they are now calling
>one Total Body Scan the equivalent of Hiroshima citizenship on Aug. 6,
>1945!!!), I'm forwarding the following letter to you.
>Re: WSJ Personal Journal 8-31-04 page D1, "Study Cites Risks of Full-Body
> Although I have been a physician for four decades, I am writing this
>letter as a patient and cancer survivor. This latter status would not be
>possible without a recent death-depriving CT Total Body Scan (TBS).
> Originally, I had shared the politically correct professional view that
>TBS is a gimmick and fad that offers much financial reward to the scan
>providers, but little medical reward to the consumers of these services.
>However, when I was due for colonscopy (my mother had adenocarcinoma of the
>transverse colon a decade ago), I decided to learn for myself what this new
>technology had to offer, so I scheduled a TBS including virtual colonscopy.
>I was shocked the next morning when the radiologist reading the scan
>urgently called me to report that I had a 5 cm mass in my left kidney, most
>likely a cancer. This completely asymptomatic renal cell carcinoma was
>confirmed on further scans and ultrasound imaging which showed no sign of
>metastasis, and was successfully removed endoscopically within the month,
>with no need for chemotherapy or irradiation. Since then, I have reviewed
>my records and experiences with several radiologists, and they have decided
>to get a TBS for themselves within the near future, one even planning to fly
>from Topeka to Irvine when the opportunity arises. Thus, even though I am
>sure these authors would consider me and my case insignificant and
>anecdotal, I find growing opposition to Brenner and Elliston's cavalier
>assertion that there is no evidence of TBS effectiveness in finding hidden
> Furthermore, I am amazed that these Columbia University researchers would
>compound their error by using one of the greatest scientific frauds of the
>past century, the Linear No-threshold (LNT) hypothesis of radiation exposure
>risk, to indict this new technology as carcinogenic. During my medical
>career, some of my best friends have been radiologists, though I have envied
>their incomes, banker's hours, and work environments. However, I have also
>discovered that some radiologists are badly in need of enlightenment,
>perhaps from too much time in the darkroom. I am shocked that their
>professional associations still pay politically correct homage to the LNT, a
>well-intentioned but myth-guided fraud which apparently is more revered in
>academia than any of the ten commandments carried downhill by Moses. If the
>LNT were indeed true, then life on earth would have succumbed billions of
>years ago instead of surviving and spreading all over this globe during much
>higher background levels and cosmic radiation spikes far surpassing today's
>multiple X-rays and CT scans and even atomic-bomb exposures. If
>grade-school students can immediately grasp this simple but profound fact,
>why is it perennially incomprehensible to graduate students and medical
>faculty as well as government regulators? Further exposition of this point
>can be found at:
> If I had heeded the advice of Brenner and Elliston and the pejorative press which followed, I would never have had my TBS. By waiting for symptoms/indications to show up, I would have missed this opportunity to avert future pain and suffering and premature death.
>Gerald Looney, MD, MPH
>Al and Jerry: I think Brenner&Elliston are eligible for Negligence and
>Malpractice awards! My late partner, Nancy Greene, died in March of this
>year after a two-year struggle with bladder cancer. In October, 2001, we
>were both scheduled for TBS, but she canceled it for a trip to Washington.
>Then, she spoke with other docs who convinced her that TBS was not
>worthwhile, so she declined to re-schedule it. In June of 2002 she
>developed symptoms ("indications" for a scan) of obstruction and hematuria,
>and the scan now showed a bladder cancer which had finally eroded thru the
>bladder wall. I believe detection nearly a year earlier would have made all
>the difference in survival. When thousands of patients are spending $10,000
>to reshape their faces and bodies (for a few years), how can radiologists
>say TBS at one-tenth that expense is not cost-effective?
>Best to you both, and I hope you enjoy my temper tantrum.