CT scans and other nuclear medicine tests: utilizing Complementary Medicine to decrease radiation risks

Paul Reller, L.Ac.

CT or CAT scans: the risks and harm from the high dosage of radiation in medical testing, and how to decrease these risks and harm with Complementary and Integrative Medicine

CT, or CAT, are terms for computerized tomography, or computer assisted tomography. Tomography is a diagnostic means of imaging utilizing multiple slices, or sectioning, to create a clearer picture of tissues. CT scans utilize radiation, and are more accurately called X-ray tomography. There are many more types of diagnostic tomography available in medicine, and most of these pose less risk and harm than multiple X-rays, which deposit accumulative amounts of electromagnetic radiation in tissue, and create accumulative harm and risk, especially for cancerous mutations. CT scans are increasingly chosen in diagnosis, though, and the use of CT in modern medicine has increased at a dizzying rate, mainly because of the availability of the equipment, and the cost of the test, not because of the advantage with patient safety. CT scans may utilize many X-ray slices. Typically several phases with 10-50 quick X-ray rotations taking about a second apiece are used. Multiple X-ray snapshots may be taken at different angles during a rotation. The accumulative radiation is equivalent to many individual X-rays. A typical CT scan uses a 64 slice imaging, equivalent to 64 individual X-Rays, and as a series of investigative articles in the New York Times revealed in 2010, the incidence of overradiation during routine CT testing is quite prevalent.

An X-ray is considered harmful. Lead shielding is used with X-ray to protect sensitive body parts, and to protect the technicians. X-ray levels have had to be reduced dramatically over the years due to the evidence of harm. The immediate harm from X-ray, though, is not the worst threat to our health. The long-term accumulative injury, compounded with the varying amounts of electromagnetic radiation accumulating within the body from ingesting of radioactive particles, or radionuclides, from environmental radiation sources, is the most important threat to consider. X-ray, gamma ray, and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, is found in our environment as well, produced both by nature, and by man-made equipment. This has led to difficulties in clearly identifying medical radiologic imaging as a specific source of radiation harm in specific cases. Despite these legal hurdles to proving that specific radiologic tests are responsible for health injury, especially cancer and less dramatic tissue lesions, we do know that accumulative radiation, and accumulative harm from radiation, is responsible for a dramatic and increasing percentage of cases of cancer in the U.S., and may be responsible for other cellular and tissue damage that contributes to a variety of health problems.

The last President's Council on Cancer (quoted below) reported that a dramatic rise in the percentage of cancers in the U.S. attributable to CT scans has occurred, with estimates of up to 5% of all cancers in the U.S. directly caused by radiation, and a much higher percentage estimated as partially or indirectly caused by radiation. This number has risen dramatically in the last two decades, and a dramatic percentage of our radiation exposure in general now comes from medical radiation and especially the CT scan. As we look at the figures of average radiation exposure, and the rise in the percentage attributed to CT scans and other nuclear imaging and treatment techniques, the individual must realize that these average figures include many individuals that have received no exposure with CT scans and other radiation testing and treatment, and that the actual radiation in regards to individuals that have received these tests and treatments is much higher than the average. Too often, medical doctors do not consider the individual history of the patient regarding individual radiation exposure, and prescribe these tests and treatments without a proper assessment of individualized risk versus benefit. The patient is responsible, to a large degree, in taking these considerations into the risk versus benefit assessment, and helping to make the right decision. One thing that the patient may also consider, is how much they are doing to counter the risks and harm from radiation in their bodies. If an individual is doing more to counter these risks and harm, they may find that the risk versus benefit assessment is changed, and the decision to get the tests or treatment is a more acceptable risk.

The 2008-2009 President's Cancer Panel, a mandated periodic report by the United States' leading cancer experts reported that radiation is one of the most important causes of cancer, and the the percentage of accumulative radiation in the average American attributable to medical imaging devices, especially CT scans, has risen dramatically. These experts stated: “While ionizing radiation exposures from radon, occupational, and other sources have remained essentially stable over the past 30 years, Americans now are estimated to receive nearly half of their total radiation exposure from medical imaging and other medical sources, compared with only 15 percent in the early 1980s. The increase in medical radiation has nearly doubled the total average effective radiation dose per individual in the United States. Computed Tomography (CT) and nuclear medicine tests alone now contribute 36 percent of the total radiation exposure and 75 percent of the medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population. Medical imaging of children is of special concern; compared with adults, children have many more years of life during which a malignancy initiated by medical radiation can develop. Many referring physicians, radiology professionals, and the public are unaware of the radiation dose associated with various tests or the total radiation dose and related increased cancer risk individuals may accumulate over a lifetime. People who receive multiple scans or other tests that require radiation may accumulate doses equal to or exceeding that of Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors. It is believed that a single large dose of ionizing radiation and numerous low doses equal to the single large dose have much the same effect on the body over time.” LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., M.D., F.A.C.S., Professor of Surgery Howard University College of Medicine Washington, DC, and Margaret L. Kripke, M.D. Ph.D. Professor Emerita The University of Texas Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX, lead authors of the PCP report.

The danger from electromagnetic and other forms of radiation is accumulative. Radioactive radionuclides emit radiation and are accumulative in the body, and the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation from radionuclides and from photon radiation such as X-ray are also accumulative. There is very little difference between radionuclide gamma radiation and X-ray radiation. Our bodies have varying degrees of ability, though, to counter these accumulative harmful effects, and this is where the individual may take proactive steps to increase the ability of our bodies to counter this accumulative radioactive harm and risk. Each individual may be exposed to different amounts of radiation in their lives, ingesting different amounts of radionuclides that continue to emit radiation, sometimes for one's entire life, and receiving doses of electromagnetic and other forms of radiation in differing amounts. This equation is complicated to exactly measure and assess. Today, the dramatic rise in poorly regulated natural gas drilling and hydrofracturing of the deep rock layers in the earth to release natural gas is releasing a significant amount of radionuclides into our environment, which we will all eventually ingest with food and water. The smart patient will assess their radiation exposure and take steps to counter it in a healthy and safe manner.

Unfortunately, we have bred a general attitude of ignoring this health threat, not understanding it, and not taking sufficient measures to counter it. Medical doctors and the standard medical community keep repeating that the tests and treatments they use are beneficial, and so we should just ignore the risks and harm to our health. There is an attitude that if we object to, or discuss, this risk and harm, that we are being negative concerning testing and treatment. The black and white attitude is not helping us deal with the problem, and is allowing standard medicine to increase these risks and harms without regard for consequences, and without creating better means of countering the risks and harms of radiation, which are accumulative. Proper assessment will take into consideration the individual's history with radiation accumulation, the patient's concern with acccumulative radiation, the family history of cancer, the exposure risks at their workplace or in their community environment, and in many cases offer testing and treatment options that avoid excess accumulative radiation. When the radiological testing and treatment is necessary, integrating protective medicine into the patient protocol is also a sound approach. Standard medicine has to this point failed to provide pharmaceutical medicines to counter radiation risk and harm. Complementary and Integrative Medicine, though, is coming up with sound research that provides therapeutic means of countering and reducing the risks and harms from radiation. Studies cited below show that many herbal chemicals in Chinese herbs are radioprotective, and science is finding better and better ways to stimulate specific immune and detox responses with nutrient medicine and acupuncture.

Radionuclides, used in radiation therapy, and in some nuclear testing, are radioactive particles that decay slowly and themselves emit radiation. Different types of radionuclides decay at differing rates, and some forms used in radiation therapy and testing decay relatively quickly, while others decay very slowly. Radionuclides in the environment, such as radioactive caesium released into the water from nuclear power plants, decays very slowly, and these slow decaying radionuclides are accumulating in the environment and contributing to a greater and greater degree of electromagnetic radiation. The half-life of caesium 137, a radioactive isoptope of caesium commonly released from nuclear power plants, has a half-life (meaning the time to decay just half of the radiating isotope) of about 30 years. It is estimated that it may take more than 200 years for caesium 137 to decay to 1% of its radioactivity. As more and more caesium isotopes, and other slowly decaying radioactive isotopes, accumulate in our environment, the amount of electomagnetic radiation increases, and our bodies, and immune systems, only have a certain capacity to correct the cell mutations that occur due to this radiation.

X-rays are electromagnetic radiation that are emitted from various generators, and gamma radiation is a very similar electromagnetic radiation emitted from radionuclides such as caesium 137 or iodine isotopes. Both of these types of electromagnetic radiation are used in radiological testing. Radiation leaking from nuclear power plants, often into the waterways, also contains radionuclides of caesium 137 and iodine isotopes. All of these sources, including medical imaging, contribute to the accumulative harmful effects of radiation. The key point in this assessment of radiation is that our technological world is creating increasing amounts of ubiquitous radiation in our environment, and as this increases, we must be increasingly concerned about the amount of electromagnetic radiation that we are exposed to, not less concerned over time. After the initial wave of nuclear reactors were built in the U.S., dangers and risks were exposed, especially the frequent leaking of radionuclides from releases of coolant water, and no more nuclear reactors were built. Because of this, the level of environmental radiation has stayed fairly stable for 30 years. As we build new nuclear power plants, and as the old plants age and experience dysfunction, the environmental accumulative radiation is sure to increase.

While the medical industry has focused on acute injury from destruction of tissue with excessive dosage of this radiation, and recent investigations into a significant number of incidences of harm from CT scans have also focused on acute tissue injury from overdose of radiation, or improper focus of the radiation beams, the most important worry for most patients should be the long-term consequences. Just because these diagnostic tests have not caused an acute dramatic tissue injury does not mean that there are no long-term negative consequences. These long-term consequences have been known and discussed since 1900, yet little actual study of this harm was accomplished until 2000.

Public confusion concerning radiation is a major problem with clearly identifying health risks from specific types of radiation, and making individual decisions concerning risks versus benefits from specific medical imaging tests. What is radiation? This term applies to energy radiated in the form of waves or particles. To radiate means to spread out, either in a direct line or in all directions, but radiation means that energy is spread in a ray. A ray of energy is a stream of particles. There are many types of energy rays in our modern world; electron, radon, gamma, cathode, ultraviolet, infrared, microwave, etc. When referring to radiation, this word may mean a wide variety of types, frequencies, intensities, and degrees of harm. Each type of radiation, though, may injure the cells in our bodies with sufficient levels of exposure, and some forms of radiation are accumulative over time. Gamma rays and X-rays are similar forms of electromagnetic radiation, but differ in the source of the radiating energy, the amount of energy, and the frequency of radiation.

Confusion concerning differing types of radiation and the risk presented has led many patients to believe that there is no risk or harm from repeated CT scans. When reading an article on the radiation risk from cell phones or other devices, one may get the impression that there is an exagerration of the risk and harm and that this applies to CT scans as well. This is not true. The risk and harm is now well documented concerning CT scans.

Alternative technology is available with tomography. In many cases, these alternatives must be explored by the patient, though. A specific medical doctor, clinic, or hospital will have access to certain technologies, or ties to radiology businesses with certain technologies. Alternatives that are safer and that will generate a similar amount of valuable diagnostic information are often not presented to the patient properly due to economic concerns. Various forms of tomography will reveal different degrees of information. For instance, an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging, will show the differences distinctly in soft tissues, while the X-ray will more clearly show the bone. Newer, advanced MRI imaging has come onto the market, allowing much clearer tomography, the ability to set the patient in a variety of positions, shorter testing times, and reduced cost. These new advnanced MRI imaging tests are discouraged at present by the industry, which needs to replace its current machines with the new technology, and prefers to make greater profits by using the old machines. PET, or positron emission tomography, is a type of testing where a system detects gamma rays emitted from positron-emitting radionuclides introduced into the body on a biologically active molecule. These PET scans may or may not utilize CT as well during the test. The type of tracer molecule used determines the amount of radiation received, or necessary. The radionuclide used has a very short half-life and is introduced into the blood circulation. If the CT is not used in the test, the PET scan is nearly harmless. Because of the high cost of maintaining avaelability of short-lived radioactive isotopes, the use of PET scans is currently limited. SPECT, or single photon emission computed tomography, is another type of testing that utilizes simpler tracer molecules. The gamma ray camera rotated around the patient does not issue gamma rays, but detects them. This type of testing may may more utilized in the future, when public concern about the radiation dosing stirs industry or governmental change.

MRI has been shown to be a valuable tool to detect cancer, and no radiation or other harm occurs with MRI study. In the April, 2011 issue of Radiology researchers at the reknowned cancer center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, headed by Dr. Janice Sung, states that MRI has a proven efficacy as an adjunct to mammography in screening women at high risk for breast cancer, and is especially appropriate when their is a history of breast cancer risk from prior high radiation. The article states: “The incidence of breast cancer increases approximately 8 years after chest irradiation, and 13 percent to 20 percent of women treated with moderate to high-dose chest irradiation for a pediatric cancer will be diagnosed with breast cancer by age 40 to 45. In comparison, the cumulative evidence of invasive breast cancer by age 45 among women in the general population is only 1 percent.” Dr. Sung states that very few women have been offered MRI in the screening of breast cancers. The cost of MRI has been comparable to CT scan, but with newer MRI technology, this cost has been reduced considerably. The failure of the medical community, insurance industry, and government, to consider such options to decrease the X-Ray exposure from CT scans is unacceptable. The American Cancer Society in 2007 concluded that: “Several studies have demonstrated the ability of MRI screening to detect cancer with early-stage tumors that are associated with better outcomes. While survival or mortality data are not available, MRI has higher sensitivity and finds smaller tumors, compared with mammography, and the types of cancers found with MRI are the types that contribute to reduced mortality. It is reasonable to extrapolate that detection of noninvasive (DCIS) and small invasive cancers will lead to mortality benefit.”

The first reported findings of the efficacy of MRI to distinguish normal from cancerous tissue came in 1974, when Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, a physician and biophysicist at Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, patented this methodology. Since then, the use of MRI in cancer detection has been downplayed, and the use of CT or CAT has been heavily promoted by the industry. Newer MRI technology has created relatively portable machines and advanced imaging detail with computer software that cancels out the effects of movement on the imaging data. The push to treat calcific microlesions, called precancerous lesions, has been the chief reason cited to choose CT over MRI, but with newer technology that allows single X-ray radiology to detect smaller calcific lesions, the choice of CT over MRI no longer makes sense. The treatment of so-called precancerous microlesions that are calcifications has been controversial as well, with a very large percentage of these nodules or lesions not actually progressing to a true cancer, and much unnecessary, harmful, and stress generating treatment prescribed without basis. In addition, newer technology now allows detection of calcification without radiation. Vibro-acoustography has been shown to be effective in detecting microcalcifications by such prestigious institutions as the Mayo Clinic. This method has been proven to provide greater detail in distinguishing types of calcification over CT. Distinguishing calcifications with CT and identifying a potentially precancerous lesion from a benign lesion has been a subject of much concern. Calcifications created by breast augmentation, as well as vascular calcifications, are frequently seen in tissues and not distinguished from a calcified precancerous lesion.

The Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University advocates increased use of MRI in cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment guidance. This institute gives the pros and cons of MRI in cancer diagnosis, citing the safety, extremely clear and detailed soft tissue imagery that other imaging techniques cannot achieve, the ability to cover larger parts of the body, and determine if the cancer has spread. The disadvantages are that it will not be able to detect very small microcalcifications that distinguish some precancerous lesions, that it cannot always distinguish between malignant and benign tumors, that the test is relatively expensive, that the patient must remain still in an enclosed machine, and that a small bit of metal or metal implant may be affected by the strong magnetic field. These three disadvantages have been resolved with newer MRI technology, and the clarity of newer MRI technology improves the distinguishing between malignant and cancerous tumors. The combination of MRI with a single X-Ray eliminates the first disadvantage. In short, there are no longer any significant disadvantages to MRI over CT scan in cancer detection. There is only a resistance to change now that the industry has created so many CT scanners, and invested in this technology. Once the tumor is seen on MRI, a biopsy must be performed anyway, to determine the type of cell and potential malignancy. CT scan offers little advantage in this area.

With a medical industry that ignores the findings of the Presidents Cancer Panel and continues to doggedly insist that CT scans are completely benign to patients, while reading the numerous studies outlining the immense amount of harm and cancer causation from X-Ray accumulative injury and radiation, there seems only one solution. The patient must become better educated and take a more proactive role in selection of the best testing in each individual case, assessing risk versus benefit themselves, and discussing this intelligently with the physician. When the X-Ray technologies are utilized, especially CT scan, the patient must take another proactive step and seek out professional guidance to utilize research-based methods to help decrease future risks and harm with Complementary and Integrative Medicine.

Research into the long-term harmful effects and risks of electromagnetic radiation in various cellular systems

It is only in the last decade that research has led to an understanding of the actual harmful effects with the human cellular systems over the long term. An article published in Cell Biology and Function in 2002 stated that until 2001, no satisfactory mechanism had been proposed to explain the harmful long-term adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation such as X-Ray and gamma ray. Research had been very limited in exploring this pathophysiology. Finally, in 2000, a number of research studies were identifying the mechanisms of harm to guide therapy. The most acknowledged finding was the effects of free radical oxidants and oxidative stress generated by electromagnetic radiation. The levels of cellular detoxifying superoxide dismutase (SOD) increased, and nitric oxide levels, one metabolic means of clearing cellular damage, decreased in animals exposed to electromagnetic radiation. The decrease in nitric oxide levels could either mean that more nitric oxide was being used in the damaged cells, contributing to cellular damage, or that the capacity to generate more nitric oxide was impaired. Such findings of increased oxidative stress with long-term adverse effects of electromagnetic radiation would explain the increased risk of cancerous mutations.

Ionizing radiation is one of the most prolific generators of free oxygen radicals. Ions are charged molecules, and ionizing radiation occurs with such electromagnetic radiations as X-ray and gamma ray. X-ray produces electron rays generated outside the nucleus of the radioactive material used, and gamma rays are produced from the nucleus of the radioactive material. They both use streams of radiating electrons or positrons to penetrate deep into the body and cells. Free radical oxidants are mainly intermediaries between oxygen (O2) and water (H20), and three main free radical oxidants are superoxide (O2-), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and hydroxyl radicals (OH-). The hydroxyl radical has 3 electrons and is extremely reactive and damaging to cellular membranes. The hydroxyl radical initiates lipid peroxidation and affects unsaturated fatty acids and phospholipid membranes. The lipid radicals created react with oxygen and form lipid peroxide radicals that affect free fatty acids, and initiate a chain reaction where cell membranes are degenerated and damaging proteins with disulphide bonds are created. This activates chronic inflammatory mechanisms of the complement immune system and creates inflammatory stress that may contribute to cancerous cell mutation and other diseases.

Ionizing radiation is also capable of radiolysis of water, resulting in the formation of hydroxyl radicals, loss of integrity of cell membranes, and damage to DNA. When a cell is damaged or genetically altered, it may not undergo programmed cell death, or apoptosis, as scheduled, and allow itself to undergo more mutations before it is replaced. The cell may also not express certain proteins correctly from the DNA, resulting in the loss of protections from excess cell duplications, or excess vascularization, and other protein regulations that are at the heart of cancerous tumor growth and metastasis. X-ray and gamma ray are high energy and high frequency electromagnetic waves, or waves of photons, making them ideal for imaging. When these fundamental DNA mutations occur, future replications of these cells are more likely to develop genetic mutations that result in a cancerous growth. Despite the differences in sources, with X-ray coming from excitation of electrons and gamma ray from a radioactive nucleus, these imaging rays are nearly identicle in many aspects, and damage cells by penetrating deeply and damaging cells largely through indirect ionizing effects.

The more we know about the mechanisms of damage to cell by X-ray, the more we can devise the best strategies for protection against radiation damage from CT scans. Antioxidants are a large class of chemicals, with many antioxidants supplied by the diet, and many more created in the body. Choosing the right antioxidant nutrient and herbal medicines, and stimulating the right immune responses to repair DNA damage are the two most important concerns in clearing the long-term damage and risk from CT scans.

Taking a proactive approach to countering the risks and harmful effects of CT scans and other medical nuclear imaging, as well as nuclear radiation in treatment

You may have chosen to utilize a radiation therapy or radiological imaging, such as a CT scan, to diagnose or treat a health problem. After these test and treatments, worry about the current state of your health, and long-term implications of the side-effects and risks need to be addressed. Testing that you and your doctor may have decided presents a greater benefit than risk may also contribute future risk and harm, and engender much worry on the part of the patient. The positive method of dealing with these adverse effects of therapy and testing is to utilize a step-by-step approach with Complementary and Integrative Medicine to reduce the damage and long-term risks, counter the physiological side-effects, and improve overall health, especially of the immune system, and the liver and kidney, which are often adversely effected as they try to clear toxicities and break down and eliminate chemicals in the body. Work with a Complementary Med Physician or physicians, such as a Licensed Acupuncturist, Herbologist, Naturopath etc. will help guide the restoration of your health. A knowledgeable Licensed Acupuncturist/herbalist will be able to utilize the current research to analyze risks and side effects, and counter these with clinically proven strategies.

Much research is being conducted into the potential of herbs, nutrient supplements, and acupuncture to protect against the harmful effects of radiation therapy, testing, and chemotoxic agents, and remarkable findings are emerging. Such herbs as Gingko bliloba, ginseng, piper longum (bi ba), tinospora cordifolia (kuan jin teng), and ginger have been proven to protect against radiation (see extensive articles below in additional information). In addition, sulfur containing foods (e.g. parsnip, horseradish, watercress, cabbage, radish, spinach, cucumber, turnip, cashew, parsley, steel cut oats) and herbs have long been studied in relation to protection against harmful effects of radiation, as has chlorella. The United States government offers a medical database of such research on PubMed, the National Institutes of Health medical research database. In addition, a wealth of research within the sphere of Complementary Medicine, has long sought answers to these common public health problems, and much of this research is not published in standard medical journals, a criteria for admittance of research onto such databases as PubMed. The professional and knowledgeable Licensed Acupuncturist and herbalist has access to much of this information, and has received extensive education in their medical training.

Today, there is a fast growing field of medical research in herbal and nutrient chemistry. We no longer need to rely on historical or anecdotal evidence to treat. While the United States lags behind most countries in utilizing Complementary Medicine, medical research is being shared across the planet. By sharing herbal and nutrient medical research, patients and physicians will have greater options for the best possible integrated health care. Much of the research from China in the past was not accepted for publication in standard medical journals due to social and political bias, and industry decisions based on profit motive. We can hope that the opening of research sharing between China and the United States, as in the historic agreement of 2008 between the University of California San Francisco and Peking University, will provide us with more useful information that is evidence-based concerning Chinese herbal medicine today.

Here is a step-by-step logical guide to correcting these problems, assessing risk and harm, and taking the best steps to insure future health:

Clearly define your symptoms

Symptoms are not something we like to think about, especially when they are chronic. You need to overcome this aversion and clearly define, in writing, what are your symptoms, so that the exact cause of these symptoms can be discovered and treated. Treatment of symptoms is the first step in your recovery, but is not the most important step. To insure sustained benefit, actual reversal of damage to the physiological function in your body must be achieved, and this is not always evident by looking at the symptoms. If you stop your recovery when your symptoms subside, you are not achieving your goals. The Complementary Medicine physician will explain how your symptoms of drug and radiation side effects reveal damage to essential systems in your body. These long-term health problems need to be addressed with a step-by-step protocol to regain healthy homeostasis and function.

Understand how radiation may negatively affect your health and what type of radiation exposure, and to what organs or tissues, is involved

When you know the mechanism of damage, and where this damage may have occurred, or is continuing to occur, reversal of this damage and risk can be achieved in your therapy. For instance, if you had a chest CT, or a head CT, the radiation exposure is affecting different tissues that may require different treatment approaches to counter potential harm or risk. After the test, different antioxidants, immune stimulants, and nutrient medicines may be utilized to aid specific organ tissues, or herbs to enhance faster tissue healing may be needed. The ability of the body to detoxify may need to be enhanced, and our main detoxifying system, our liver function, needs to be enhanced again. Certain nutrient supplements greatly aid this process and these supplements should be combined with foods containing them to insure greatest utilization. Herbal strategies can be used to improve liver function and immune health as well, and Acupuncture stimulation will also be very effective to encourage improved physiological function, and will work to increase the effectiveness of the supplements and herbal formulas. Herbal formulas are usually taken in short courses, while nutrient medicines need to be taken for a longer period of time. Acupuncture stimulation helps these strategies work better, and the complete package of care insures a faster and better outcome. Discuss this process with your physician.

Help your body to help itself

The body has a natural mechanism to repair damage, called the immune system. This complex system can be made to work better by both utilizing specific herbs, supplements and acupuncture, and also by decreasing physiological stress and improving general health. Your body has certain limitations or tolerances for stress. When these limitations are exceeded, your immune system will not work effectively. Stress is defined as the physiological needs in the body, not just work deadlines and emotional situations at home. Each individual has a certain capacity for stress. The less healthy you are, the less stress tolerance that you have. To decrease stress and improve your physiological tolerances, you need to decrease work, emotional aggravation, and exposure to harmful chemicals. To improve tolerances, you need to increase therapies, healthy diet, healthy exercise, sunlight, fresh air, and restful periods. You may need to discuss a temporary reduction in the amount of medication that you consume with the prescribing M.D.. When you do all of these things positive results will happen. When you fail to do these things, you will perpetuate your problem. Changes in your lifestyle are difficult, but not as difficult as the changes to your lifestyle that will be forced on you if you don’t temporarily deal with restoration of your health.

I hope this short guide to therapy is helpful to you in organizing your physical recovery and decreasing future risks from necessary CT scans and other radioactive nuclear testing and treatment. You need to work with your Complementary Medicins physician to insure that this process works as well as you want it to, and stick to a guided therapeutic course till you achieve your goals. Don’t let worry consume you and prevent positive action. You also need to address the mental problems that often accompany these harsh therapies, such as depression and anxiety. I hope that I can be your guide to a full recovery.

CT scan injury and investigation

The President's Cancer Panel in 2009 warned that the radiation dosage from tests has been found to be highly variable and poorly regulated. This definitive report stated: “Morever, radiation dose for the same test can vary dramatically depending on the equipment used, technologist skill, application of dose-reduction strategies, and patient size, age, and gender. Licensure of imaging and radiation therapy technologists varies depending on the type of test performed by the technologist. Some states have only partial regulation; six states and the District of Columbia have no licensure or regulatory provisions of any kind.” These states include Florida, where the profession is not governed by Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, but by a certification process. To compare this certification process to an actual Diagnostic Radiologist training, a Diagnostic Radiologist must complete undergraduate premedical schooling, 4 years of an approved medical school, one year of internship, and 4 years of residency training. After residency, radiologists often pursue one or two years of additional specialty fellowship training. This equals 15 years of education and training after high school, compared to just 2 years of vocational training for some operators of CT scans.

How does the patient know the level of training and regulatory requirements concerning the administrators and technologists performing the radiology testing? Many states lack a high degree of training and regulation of the adminstration of CT and other radiologic tests. The public often assumes that the amount of radiation from these tests is uniform, but this is not the case. For example, in Florida, a Certified Radiologic Technologist must be at least 18 years old, be of good moral character, and have completed a two year accredited Radiologic Technology Program, except for Basic X-ray Machine Operators, who are not required to complete any educational program, but are merely required to pass a test. If the radiologist holds a current certificate or registration to practice Radiologic Technology from another state that is considered substantially equivalent (in the department's opinion) to those established by the Florida Statutes, and is endorsed by a clinic or hospital, certification may also be granted without testing.

In California, a Licensure for Radiologists exists, yet Limited X-Ray Machine Operators may perform some CT scans. Limited X-Ray Machine Operators typically earn an X-Ray certificate from a vocational school and then take a certification exam. Limited X-Ray certification means that the technicians are limited to perform X-Ray testing on the chest, extremities and torso-skeletal portions of the body, but not the head and neck. The medical industry takes the risks of CT scans lightly and the large lobbying and political donation clout of the medical industry has affected the government regulation of radiological testing and treatment.

In 2000, the introduction of conebeam CT (CBCT), a lowered dosage and more directed CT X-Ray device, was introduced to the market and heavily marketed to dentists. The degree of certification and regulation of this technology varies considerably. For example, the province of Ontario, Canada, restricts the purchase and operation of CBCT machines to radiologists, yet many states in the U.S. do not even require a radiologic certification of dentistry to allow these machines to be operated in a dental office. The array of types of machines also poses some risk, as many offices adapt machines to act as a directed conebeam, rather than buy a more expensive machine. Here, the patient has an unqualified dentist operating an adapted machine, in an unregulated situation, and the only protection afforded the patient is the knowledge and integrity of a sales technician from the company that sells and adapts the conebeam CT device. The reports of failures in setting these machines, operating them, or confusion in operation and setting have become numerous. The public is led to believe that these machines are harmless because there is rarely an immediate X-Ray burn visible, but injury from improper use may not show for weeks, and the consequences of long-term radiation accumulation are rarely discussed.

1. An August 1, 2010 article in the New York Times by Walt Bogdanich describes the third part of an investigative reporting into CT scan overdosing, its prevalence and injury. These articles are blocked from linking on the web, but searching online or accessing via other organizations is still possible: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html
2. An August 1, 2010 article in the CBS Interactive Business Network online publication BNET, by Robert Klein, also outlines the exent to which CT scans have been shown to cause injury, cancers, and excessive radiation. The number of CT scans administered in the U.S. rose from 3 million in 1980 to approximately 70 million performed each year by 2010: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6839/is_2010_August/ai_n55345389/
3. After a series of investigative articles on CT scan overdosing and the extent of injuries in the U.S. governments were forced to take this problem more seriously. This article describes legislation signed into law by the Republican governor in 2010 before he left office, which establishes a requirement for the first time that clinics and hospitals must keep track of CT scan radiation and inform patients when they are overdosed: http://www.cmalaw.net/blog/2010/12/california-cracks-down-on-ct-scan-over-dosing.shtml

Information Resources

The growing body of research concerning protective effects of Chinese herbs with radiation and chemotherapy is often not published in medical journals that are primarily funded and promoted by the standard medical industry. Below is just a sample of the research available to the public. The fact that herbal and nutrient medicine, as well as acupuncture, is being incorporated into the standard protocol of many prominent cancer clinics is proof that this research is sound. The research the confirms that hepatoprotective effects of herbs and nutrient medicines to decrease liver dysfunction and disease as a result of the stress of pharmaceutical drug breakdown and detoxification by the liver is also extensive. Of course, antioxidant mechanisms, immune stimulation, and many other protocols, such as enhancement of glutathione metabolism are important subjects to be explored as well. Below is just a small sample of the research and articles devoted to this subject.

1. A 2007 study of herbs to protect against radiation therapy effects: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2127223
2. A 2005 study in India of radioprotection, or protection against radiation effects, showed that no effective pharmacological agent has been found, and the field of medicine has turned to herbal medicine to find effective medicines in this regard: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15799007
3. A 2006 study of the radioprotective effects of a Chinese herb, Cordyceps sinensis (Dong chong xia cao), found that this herb significantly protected against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17149981
4. A 2005 study of the radioprotective effects of a Ginseng found that this herb exerts significant radiprotective effects and antitumor properties, making the herb suitable to attenuate the adverse effects of radiation in humans : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15956041
5. A 2010 study in India found that Silymarin, or Milk Thistle, shows much potential as a radioprotective herb, able to modulate the levels of NF-kappaB, scavenge peroxyl radicals in the lipid phase, and completely inhibit lipid peroxidative stress of cellular membranes exposed to ionizing radiation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20653235
6. A 2006 study of the herb Rhodiola imbricata at the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences in New Delhi, India, found that this herb exerted significant radioprotective effects, particularly when both the alcohol and water extract of the herb were used: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16822199
7. A 1998 study at the Unite de Recherches sur la Cinetique Cellulair, in Villejuif, France, found that the Chinese herb Acanthopanax senticosus (Ci wu jia, or Siberian Ginseng) exerted significant radioprotective effects: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3049132
8. A 2009 study in South Korea, at Seoul National University, found new technology to analyze the radioprotective effects of Chinese herbs. Among the Chinese herbs found radioprotective with this methodology, Pueraria root (Ge gen, or Kudzu), showed the highest antioxidant/radioprotective activity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19541472
9. A 2007 study of the herb hawthorn fruit to protect against radiation therapy effects: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17185880
10. A 2007 meta-analysis of the limited studies published in Western medical journals on Chinese herbs used to treat the side-effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients revealed a small number of randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials establishing efficacy, and called for the funding of more and larger clinical trials to explore this adjunct therapy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443560
11. A 2010 article in Reuters reported on a clinical study published in the professional journal Cancer that found that Milk Thistle was effective in reducing liver damage induced by chemotherapy in children. By combining such herbs in formula, the professional herbalist is able to tailor an effective treatment protocol to decrease chemotherapy damage: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD2XS20091214
12. A 2009 article in the New York Times reveals that the integrity of medical research in the United States has been severely damaged by the findings of extensive ghostwriting of published articles, and the use of scientific publication to market and promote drugs: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/business/18ghost.html
13. A 2010 article in the New York Times reveals that pharmaceutical companies are now conducting up to 80% of their clinical trials outside of the United States, where FDA oversight is lax: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/health/research/22trial.html?ref=health

The information on this website is not intended to be used as a specific medical advice or cure. Please consult with the practitioner or an appropriate physician, such as a licensed acupuncturist, naturopath, or medical doctor, to discuss the proper application of the information contained on this website.