I am sorry to hear that you had a bad day. This should make you feel better. I have developed tinnitus about a month ago. It happened suddenly. I have been hearing constant swooshing sound in my left 24 hours. I am waking up in the middle of night because of the sound. My friends say it is my age. I am going to see an ENT doctor soon with fingers crossed. If that does not solve the problem, I need to find a patients' forum for tinnitus .
I wish I had an angel today. I went to see a ear specialist to find out about my tinnitus problem. I was hoping that
she would say that it was ear was. But my ear was clean. After she checked to see if I had sinus and did some test, she said she would me sending to ultra sound and to MRI to see what's happening inside my head. Meanwhile, I have to learn with a new norm to live with constant swooshing sound in my ear, especially need to learn to sleep while I am hearing the nose. A small plus is that I don't have to wear an extra wrist band to check my heart rate as I hear it all the time. The truth is I am still assessing the situation. My emotion is up and down.
So, we know mitochondria consumes glucose (someone say sugar) and generates energy for all chemical reactions
in our body. Top layer cells of bladder epithelial cells need to be replaced with new cells every 40 days because of tear and wear due to sodium, chlorine and toxin in urine and due to expansion and contraction. So, mitochondria needs to generate energy for a cell division every 40 days. Cancer cells lost a sense of when to rest, so they divide without stop. Mitochondria consumes more glucose and generate more energy to support proliferation of the cancer cells. PET uses this phenomena to see how active cancer cells are by checking how much glucose are being consumed by mitochondria. PET is short for Positron Emission Tomography. I will explain it in more detail later but the point is that just before you go into a PET machine, you will be intravenously injected with glucose (sugar). The injected glucose will be delivered to all of your body including cancer cells and surrounding normal cells through blood vessels. The area where the more cells are dividing, multiple mitochondria in those cells are consuming glucose. If there is a machine to detect how much glucose consumption is happening, not only the machine should be able to detect where cancers are located and how fast cancers are growing and how slow cancers are growing. This is what PET does. The problem is that PET is not designed to detect glucose consumption activities directly. So, something to emit positron is added to glucose. This positron collides with
an electron and vanishes after emitting 511 keV gamma photons. PET can detect those gamma photons, thus will know where in the body the positron existed. That is where glucose was consumed/mitochondria of a cell is located.
The risk is absorbed radiation doses when Fludeoxgenglucose F18 ( this is glucose with Fluorine isotope F18) is injected to our vein.
I have tried to come up with the risk of PET in terms of radiation below. But, I could not totally wrong.
FDA report says for adult (70kg), with one pet scan, 0.32 rem/Ci radiation is absorbed in the bladder wall.
0.32 rem/Ci is the same as 0.0032 or 3.3mSV
Radiation absorption from chest Xray is 0.1mv, which is equivalent of being outside 10 days.
Radiation absorption from CT scan of abdomen and pelvis is 10 mSV, which is equivalent of 100 Xray or 1000 days being outside.
Radiation absorption to bladder wall is 3.3mSV, which is equivalent of 33 times of Xray or 1/3 of CT scan, or 330 days of being outside.
It is noted infants absorb 10 times more radiation than adults.
the risk of CT scan will be covered late.
Attached are the molecule structure of Glucose and when Fluorine isotope F18 was bonded to make the contrast which is injected for PET scan and how a positron is generated and how it collide
with an electron and generate 511kev photons.
In January 2013, Dr. Amy Barrington de Gonzalez - now Branch Chief Senior Investigator/Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics / Radiation Epidemiology Branch at NIH had told the audience that the risk of developing cancer by the exposure to CT scan was 1% in a lifetime. She pointed out that the number of CT scans performed had increased from 3 million times in 1980 to 70 million times in 2007. She also predicted that the risk of developing cancer will increase to 3% if the CT usage continues to increase at the same pace. The number of CT scans performed had reached over 90 million times in 2019. So, the risk of getting cancer in a lifetime should have increased to more than 1%. So, I sent an email questioning to Dr. Barrington, and she replied that she and her team have been working on the subject and will be publishing the result. Dr. Barriton also pointed out that
the data from National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which reports that annual non-therapeutic medical radiation dose to the US population in 2016 is 15-20% lower than it was in 2006. In 2006, the estimated average individual effective dose by CT was 1.46 mSv and it came down to 1.37 mSv in 2016 in spite the number of CT exams increased 20% from 2006 to 2016. I do not have access to the detailed report to find out the causes of the reduction. But I assume that the medical community and patients have become more aware of the risk of radiation exposure from CT. I also have noticed that there has been increased use of a low-dose CT scan.
In a 2009 study from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, researchers estimated the potential risk of cancer from CT scans in 31,462 patients over 22 years. For the group as a whole, the increase in risk was slight — 0.7% above the overall lifetime risk of cancer in the United States, which is 42%. But for patients who had multiple CT scans, the increase in risk was higher, ranging from 2.7% to 12%. (In this group, 33% had received more than five CT scans; 5%, more than 22 scans; and 1%, more than 38.)
CT exam is fast, not expensive, and gives vital medical information as a diagnostic tool.
Also, as a consumer of CT exam, we should be aware that the more radiation from CT exams we go through,
the higher chance of developing cancer. We may want to keep a record of what type of CT scan we had, for example the whole body or just a specific area, and question to the doctor about the risk when the doctor orders us a CT exam.
Dr. Barrington de Gozales on Medical Radiation and cancer risk: assessing the price of progress
Thank you so much for taking the time to share this information. I don't know how much I agree with it since, In the various literature on the topic that I have come across - pundits seem to say that radiation is really not the best as it makes the body more acidic.