Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Roni, You wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by: > > Since the risk is cumulative, and the increment > decreases with age, the argument mainly takes the form of how often you > should get one at each age. > > > Does this mean as we get older we could sustain more xrays or less? > Yes, sensitivity to (and risk from) radiation exposure decreases with age. OTOH, risk of developing any cancer increases with age. So, the number of mammograms recommended increases with age, as risk from the procedure goes down, but risk from not doing the procedure goes up. The older you are, the less risk radiation poses. This is why the unborn need to be protected more than an older person from radiation. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 That is very interesting. I wonder why and how the risk from radiation decreases with age and why cancer increases. What is the mechanism for each? <>Roni Immortality exists! It's called knowledge! Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > > I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by: > > Since the risk is cumulative, and the increment > decreases with age, the argument mainly takes the form of how often you > should get one at each age. > > > Does this mean as we get older we could sustain more xrays or less? > Yes, sensitivity to (and risk from) radiation exposure decreases with age. OTOH, risk of developing any cancer increases with age. So, the number of mammograms recommended increases with age, as risk from the procedure goes down, but risk from not doing the procedure goes up. The older you are, the less risk radiation poses. This is why the unborn need to be protected more than an older person from radiation. Chuck ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Roni Molin wrote: > > > That is very interesting. I wonder why and how the risk from radiation > decreases with age > and why cancer increases. What is the mechanism for each? > Radiation damage is a stochastic process. Risk is proportional to the rate of cell reproduction. Thus, the first parts of the body to be affected by radiation are the bone marrow, where blood cells form, and the lining of the intestine. Nerve cells are the most radiation resistant in the body. A fetus is much more sensitive to radiation than an infant, which is why they try to keep X-rays away from pregnant women except in extreme cases. As we age, our cells slow down, so we become less sensitive with time. Cancer risk appears to be a function of accumulated damage from all sources and random genetic errors. Thus, it is also stochastic. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Roni Molin wrote: > > > That is very interesting. I wonder why and how the risk from radiation > decreases with age > and why cancer increases. What is the mechanism for each? > Radiation damage is a stochastic process. Risk is proportional to the rate of cell reproduction. Thus, the first parts of the body to be affected by radiation are the bone marrow, where blood cells form, and the lining of the intestine. Nerve cells are the most radiation resistant in the body. A fetus is much more sensitive to radiation than an infant, which is why they try to keep X-rays away from pregnant women except in extreme cases. As we age, our cells slow down, so we become less sensitive with time. Cancer risk appears to be a function of accumulated damage from all sources and random genetic errors. Thus, it is also stochastic. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Sometimes they will and sometimes they won't. I usually pay out of pocket because I don't like fighting with the gov't to get screening. FWIW, I had pre-cancerous FBD (fibrocystic breast disease), sucessfully treated with Iodoral and vitamin c, and used both thermograms and ultrasounds to prove it to my then mainstream practitioner. Also, the earliest that breast tumors can be dected is via thermogram. Tumors have to be larger and well on their was before mammograms can detect them. To know more about this stuff, please see http://www.breastcancerchoices.org Sam > [...] > > > > One other thing I've wondered about is mamograms. Since one possible > > cause of hypothyroidism is radiation, wouldn't continuing to have > > mamograms every year, lessen any remaining function of the thyroid? > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Well, I can't pay out of pocket, so I'll have to stick to what I can get. <>Roni Immortality exists! It's called knowledge! Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: Sam . <k9gang@...> Subject: Re: More Questions hypothyroidism Date: Saturday, August 28, 2010, 8:56 AM Sometimes they will and sometimes they won't. I usually pay out of pocket because I don't like fighting with the gov't to get screening. FWIW, I had pre-cancerous FBD (fibrocystic breast disease), sucessfully treated with Iodoral and vitamin c, and used both thermograms and ultrasounds to prove it to my then mainstream practitioner. Also, the earliest that breast tumors can be dected is via thermogram. Tumors have to be larger and well on their was before mammograms can detect them. To know more about this stuff, please see http://www.breastcancerchoices.org Sam > [...] > > > > One other thing I've wondered about is mamograms. Since one possible > > cause of hypothyroidism is radiation, wouldn't continuing to have > > mamograms every year, lessen any remaining function of the thyroid? > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Well, I can't pay out of pocket, so I'll have to stick to what I can get. <>Roni Immortality exists! It's called knowledge! Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: Sam . <k9gang@...> Subject: Re: More Questions hypothyroidism Date: Saturday, August 28, 2010, 8:56 AM Sometimes they will and sometimes they won't. I usually pay out of pocket because I don't like fighting with the gov't to get screening. FWIW, I had pre-cancerous FBD (fibrocystic breast disease), sucessfully treated with Iodoral and vitamin c, and used both thermograms and ultrasounds to prove it to my then mainstream practitioner. Also, the earliest that breast tumors can be dected is via thermogram. Tumors have to be larger and well on their was before mammograms can detect them. To know more about this stuff, please see http://www.breastcancerchoices.org Sam > [...] > > > > One other thing I've wondered about is mamograms. Since one possible > > cause of hypothyroidism is radiation, wouldn't continuing to have > > mamograms every year, lessen any remaining function of the thyroid? > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Thank you for the explanation. Do antioxidants help the cells to reproduce better, longer? Is there some other thing or things to help do this? <>Roni Immortality exists! It's called knowledge! Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > > That is very interesting. I wonder why and how the risk from radiation > decreases with age > and why cancer increases. What is the mechanism for each? > Radiation damage is a stochastic process. Risk is proportional to the rate of cell reproduction. Thus, the first parts of the body to be affected by radiation are the bone marrow, where blood cells form, and the lining of the intestine. Nerve cells are the most radiation resistant in the body. A fetus is much more sensitive to radiation than an infant, which is why they try to keep X-rays away from pregnant women except in extreme cases. As we age, our cells slow down, so we become less sensitive with time. Cancer risk appears to be a function of accumulated damage from all sources and random genetic errors. Thus, it is also stochastic. Chuck ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2010 Report Share Posted August 28, 2010 Thank you for the explanation. Do antioxidants help the cells to reproduce better, longer? Is there some other thing or things to help do this? <>Roni Immortality exists! It's called knowledge! Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > > That is very interesting. I wonder why and how the risk from radiation > decreases with age > and why cancer increases. What is the mechanism for each? > Radiation damage is a stochastic process. Risk is proportional to the rate of cell reproduction. Thus, the first parts of the body to be affected by radiation are the bone marrow, where blood cells form, and the lining of the intestine. Nerve cells are the most radiation resistant in the body. A fetus is much more sensitive to radiation than an infant, which is why they try to keep X-rays away from pregnant women except in extreme cases. As we age, our cells slow down, so we become less sensitive with time. Cancer risk appears to be a function of accumulated damage from all sources and random genetic errors. Thus, it is also stochastic. Chuck ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 Roni Molin wrote: > > > Thank you for the explanation. Do antioxidants help the cells to > reproduce better, longer? > Is there some other thing or things to help do this? > Antioxidants are thought to help remove free radicals, reactive chemicals that occur naturally within cells that can damage DNA. Ionizing radiation makes a lot of free radicals (mostly peroxides) in a short time. So, in principle, antioxidants should help with the effects of radiation. In practice, the amount of free radicals that antioxidants can remove is pretty tiny compared to what radiation can produce, so there is no detectable benefit except for very low dose radiation delivered at slow rates, just above background where the effects can't be detected anyway. Plus, the small effect of antioxidants seems to saturate at about the maximum level of any ONE antioxidant. In other words, if you get several times the RDA of vitamin C, selenium won't add to the antioxidant effect. There are other reasons to take both, especially if you are hypoT, so don't look for additional antioxidants at the store. You are probably already saturated. BTW, in a pinch you could take Armour with food for the excess RT3. That turns it into a T3 only medication. You just have to take more. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 Thanks for the info. I can't take Armour though, that's what made me sick in the first place when all this RT3 started. I have been on it for several years with no trouble until they changed whatever they changed. <>Roni Immortality exists! It's called knowledge! Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > > Thank you for the explanation. Do antioxidants help the cells to > reproduce better, longer? > Is there some other thing or things to help do this? > Antioxidants are thought to help remove free radicals, reactive chemicals that occur naturally within cells that can damage DNA. Ionizing radiation makes a lot of free radicals (mostly peroxides) in a short time. So, in principle, antioxidants should help with the effects of radiation. In practice, the amount of free radicals that antioxidants can remove is pretty tiny compared to what radiation can produce, so there is no detectable benefit except for very low dose radiation delivered at slow rates, just above background where the effects can't be detected anyway. Plus, the small effect of antioxidants seems to saturate at about the maximum level of any ONE antioxidant. In other words, if you get several times the RDA of vitamin C, selenium won't add to the antioxidant effect. There are other reasons to take both, especially if you are hypoT, so don't look for additional antioxidants at the store. You are probably already saturated. BTW, in a pinch you could take Armour with food for the excess RT3. That turns it into a T3 only medication. You just have to take more. Chuck ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2010 Report Share Posted August 29, 2010 Roni Molin wrote: > > > Thanks for the info. I can't take Armour though, that's what made me > sick in the first place when all this RT3 started. I have been on it > for several years with no trouble until they changed whatever they > changed. > Of course, stick to what works best. I was just suggesting that since it is probably the T4 component in Armour causing you problems, taking it with food would prevent absorption of the T4. If for some reason you could not get the T3 synthetic, you might try left over Armour with food. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2010 Report Share Posted December 5, 2010 I've had ossicular reconstruction on my right ear. I was never diagnosed until I'd lost my hearing (bones dissolved). It works amazingly well and it's actually my better ear. I still wear a hearing aid though because of sensorineural hearing loss (nerve deafness). I've had a cholesteatoma removed from my left ear as well, but it was caught earlier because my doctor was monitoring me closely. For that ear he reshaped the bones. My hearing in that is is really bad and of course I wear an aid in it. With my level of hearing loss, I wasn't happy when I just had in the ear aids. They were set to amplify as much as possible, but it just wasn't enough to function well in my job. Seven years later I got behind-the-ear aids that are much more powerful. Now I can hear pretty well at meetings, but I still get exhausted from the concentration involved from straining to hear and lip-reading. When you have ossicular reconstruction, you'll be restricted in activity for about six weeks. Lifting can be a problem (no more than 10 pounds). No air travel, no sneeze stifling (ew!), no nose blowing (annoying as all get-out). In my opinion it's worth the hassle though. It was easier for me to get through that because of the type of job that I have. I'm the head of a couple of libraries - I like to pitch right in even with book shifts when I get the chance, but the college kids get all panicky if my face gets the slightest shade of red. Guess they don't want the old guy to keel over on them. I just get shooed back to my office to dream up more projects to make them all miserable. In short, I'm really glad I had the artificial bone put in. It has made a big difference for me. A really good neurotologist with a bunch of experience with the disease did or supervised the work though (don't exactly know for sure because it's a teaching hospital). matthewc wrote: > > Okay, my cholesteatoma crushed all the bones in my left ear. My dr > says i had the biggest one he had ever seen and did a CWD. My question > is now its 5 years later and they are wanting to do ossicular > reconstruction on it. Has anyone had this done and if so how has your > experience been? Thanks in advance > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.