• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Minimizing Radiation Damage from CT Scans

ct scan radiation xray

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 resveratrol_guy

  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 16 October 2015 - 10:47 AM


I think this subject is worth revisiting every year or so, as many of us have sporadic needs for CT scans. I have one coming up myself in a couple weeks, hence this post. I've outlined what I think I know below, and invite your commentary.

It goes without saying that most doctors want maximum imaging resolution and just assume that it's acceptable to turn you into a neutron star in order to obtain that. Depending on the imaging requirements, MRI may offer comparable quality with zero radiation hazard -- in particular, 3T or better MRI with an appropriate contrast agent (if vascularization is relevant). Just make sure to research the kidney protection protocol required for that agent.

If CT is a necessity, for example for bone imaging, then see if a dedicated scanner can shave off some rads, for example, cone beam CT in dental and jaw applications.

I read somewhere that drinking a large amount of water prior to the scan can cut the radiation dose received, presumably because hydrogen is a radiation absorber, but I can't find any good references to this. Instead, I only see references to water with respect to kidney protection from CT contrast agents, as with MRI.

 

Absent any long term studies on CT scan dosage vs. cancer rates, you should at least have a look at this cancer odds calculator.

 

Now, critically, what is the best prophylactic regimen against CT radiation damage?

A. Days, ideally a couple weeks, prior

1. Liposomal vitamin C, 1 g/d. We need to let it accummulate in the cytoplasm.

2. Astaxanthin, 4 mg/d. We need it to build up in the lipid bilayer.

3. Magnesium sulphate (citrate? glycinate?) and gamma tocopherol (vitamin E). The only study I could find involved intractably high doses, though.

4. Nigella sativa oil which protects against radiation but might contain hexane residues from extraction, so perhaps stick with the seeds (3X as much required, by mass, to obtain equivalent oil content).

B. 24 hours prior

Start fasting, except for the supplements listed below. This is because (fasting-induced) ketosis preferentially enhances damage to glycolytic cancer cells. And you thought CT scans were all bad news! As a somewhat effective alternative, presumably a tablespoon of MCT oil or even coconut oil an hour before the scan should raise blood ketones, albeit not to the level of a day's fasting.

C. An hour minutes prior to the appointment (maybe 75 prior to the scan itself)

1. 4000 IU vitamin D (based on its purported antiradiation benefits, for which I can find no evidence apart from UV).

2. 15 mg c60oo (essentially 20 mL of oil). More might be better, but this is roughly the maximum single dose which is well documented on Longecity.

3. 500 mg niacin. This upregulates NAD+, which should help with DNA repair after the fact. (Might it protect damaged cells, though, which would be bad?)

4. 1 g nicotinamide riboside. This upregulates NAD+ through a pathway parallel to niacin (so the same question applies).

5. 200 mg of pterostilbene, or more if you can handle the hypoglycemic effects. Like vitamin D, it lessens UVB damage so I'm optimistically extrapolating to radiation damage in general. (I think the pathway might be the same, as I recall that its cousin, resveratrol, interacts with vitamin D receptors.)

6. 1 mg of melatonin (but don't fall asleep on the way home!). This amplifies the damage to some cancer cells but might reduce damage to normal ones.

7. 5 g of Longvida or some other lipidated curcumin because curcumin is rumored to act bivalently, like melatonin, and we want to lipidate it to enhance uptake.

8. 100 g dark chocolate, the darker the better. (An organic cacao drink might be preferable, if less convenient, because it would be less disruptive to ketosis.) Chocolate is rich in epicatechin, which protects against DNA strand breaks and enhances cancer cell susceptibility to radiation -- yet another bivalent agent.
 

Finally, comments have been made on Longecity previously to the effect that radiation-induced hormesis might be a good thing. I would have to agree, considering that hormesis apparently results from every toxic compound, given sufficiently tiny exposure. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it seems to me that the hormesis benefits would only occur on the level of moderate UV exposure, which is orders of magnitude less radiation than any CT scan.


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 16 October 2015 - 10:52 AM.

  • Informative x 1

#2 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 16 October 2015 - 10:56 AM

It goes without saying that most doctors want maximum imaging resolution and just assume that it's acceptable to turn you into a neutron star in order to obtain that.

 

At this point I stopped reading.


  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 resveratrol_guy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 30 October 2015 - 10:31 AM

Granted I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless I've found doctors to be overwhelmingly more concerned about getting good images, than being conservative with regards to radiation risk. I guess that's because predicting the ramifications of radiation damage is like predicting the weather, only much harder.

 

My intent here was to create a thread for debating various radiation minimization strategies. It seems I've failed in this regard. Nonetheless it would be socially irresponsible if I also failed to mention what happened to me on the day before yesterday when I followed (roughly) the protocol above as a nicotinamide-riboside-naive individual (with a total dose of 1 g on that day): my brain became painfully alert, despite a complete lack of nervousness. As in, I became so "awake" that it was literally painful. Fortunately, from my longtime reading of Longecity, I soon suspected severe choline deficit. I consumed a raw egg from the supermarket on the way home, and felt much better within a minute. (This is obviously less than digestive time. There seems to be some feedback shortcut from the tastebuds to the brain with respect to choline, just as exist for glucose.) I required a second egg later in the day to allay the "brain pain". Unfortunately, this is all complicated by a minor head injury I received while getting into my car after the scan; while I don't think the injury caused all of this, it's possible.


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 30 October 2015 - 10:44 AM.


#4 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 15 February 2017 - 10:35 AM

Cancer Risks Of CT Scans

http://www.lifeexten...t-scans/page-01



#5 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 15 February 2017 - 10:37 AM

Also: http://www.doctoryou...n_VitC.pptx.pdf



#6 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:45 AM

"I read somewhere that drinking a large amount of water prior to the scan can cut the radiation dose received, presumably because hydrogen is a radiation absorber, but I can't find any good references to this"

 

The water absorbtion curve really have a pick at the gamma radiation wavelength, so it really absorbs the x-rays. 

 

But... that is a strange plus having on mind that it absorbs the rays to turn them into free radicals. 

 

 

water_spectrum_2.gif



#7 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 15 February 2017 - 07:29 PM

How about red wine and iodine?

#8 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 15 February 2017 - 07:56 PM

If this diagram is correct, then the iodine is a very powerful absorabt of gamma radiation

https://www.research...lcohol-at-298-K

for what happens when the energy is absorbed - I dont know.

And how much you can take safely... I dont know.

 

Red wine is mainly water plus some alcohol and other deluted substances.

But main percent is water. Thats why the main absorbtion effect would be for the water. If there are really antioxydants in it, then the effect would be interesting. The water will make radicals and the antioxydants will eliminate them. But this is only theoretcal. This has to be tried out - in people

And again - how much can you take safely, and alcochol is a cellular poision for the brain cells. Would it worth surely sacrificing brain cells for lowering a chance of cancer. Two new unanswered questions.



#9 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 15 February 2017 - 08:10 PM

http://www.longecity...es-nad-in-mice/ this might help

#10 Ark

  • Guest
  • 1,729 posts
  • 383
  • Location:Beijing China

Posted 15 February 2017 - 08:14 PM

If this diagram is correct, then the iodine is a very powerful absorabt of gamma radiation
https://www.research...lcohol-at-298-K
for what happens when the energy is absorbed - I dont know.
And how much you can take safely... I dont know.

Red wine is mainly water plus some alcohol and other deluted substances.
But main percent is water. Thats why the main absorbtion effect would be for the water. If there are really antioxydants in it, then the effect would be interesting. The water will make radicals and the antioxydants will eliminate them. But this is only theoretcal. This has to be tried out - in people
And again - how much can you take safely, and alcochol is a cellular poision for the brain cells. Would it worth surely sacrificing brain cells for lowering a chance of cancer. Two new unanswered questions.

I've heard large doses of alcohol prevents cancer due to radiation exposer in some people. The biodrones who were consistently drunk during their exposer at Chernobyl faired better than their non drunk counterparts. According to a few studies I've read in the past.

Edited by Ark, 15 February 2017 - 08:15 PM.


#11 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 17 August 2017 - 08:23 AM

"...Radiation from “routine” diagnostic studies, especially CT scans, poses a substantial and largely unrecognized threat to our health. But radiation damage primarily stems from free radical formation. That means we can protect ourselves powerfully with antioxidant nutrients. Naturally, you should already be using a comprehensive antioxidant regimen for health maintenance. But should you find yourself (or a loved one) in line for a CT scan, X-ray, or other high-radiation procedures, consider the following suggestions as soon as you learn you’ll undergo the test:

  • Choose an excellent, high-potency supplement containing polyphenols such as resveratrol and quercetin.
  • Include a green tea supplement high in EGCG at the top of the recommended dose range.
  • Take a soy supplement rich in genistein. To ensure that you are getting adequate amounts of protective BBI protein, add several cups of soymilk to your daily intake prior to the test.
  • Consider at least curcumin, ginseng, and ginkgo extracts prior to the test, at the upper end of the recommended doses.
  • Adding a daily dose of NAC (total 1,800 mg) is likely to be very helpful.
  • Consider utilizing SAMe (1,200 mg) to optimize DNA protection.
  • Optimize your doses of antioxidant vitamins A, C, and E. Use the upper end of Life Extension’s recommended doses. Remember that prolonged high-dose vitamin A can be dangerous, so be sure to check with your physician.
  • Begin a good oral zinc supplement if you aren’t already using one.
  • ALWAYS be sure to maximize your hydration prior to a radiation study, especially when taking sulfur-containing supplements such as NAC.
  • Minimize your exposure to other oxidant-inducing stresses such as tobacco smoke and alcohol. Immediately refrain from either as soon as you learn you’ll undergo the study...."

http://www.lifeexten...-X-rays/Page-01



#12 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:59 AM

Adding a NAD+ (normally depleted by oxidation stress and aging) precursor such as nicotinamide riboside (or NMN) might help to increase the activity of the PARP1 enzyme which is key for DNA damage repair (mostly the worst double strand damage):

 

"...The favorable effect of resveratrol in promoting sirtuin activity is well established. For sirtuins to function properly, they must have sufficient NAD+ to fuel their activity.7,10 Protecting against pathological aging, however, requires more than securing sirtuin structure-function. We must also ensure the following two types of DNA damage are repaired:

  • Single-strand DNA breaks occur often and are usually fixed by nutrients that most of you supplement with today.
  • Double-strand DNA breaks are more difficult to restore. Left unrepaired, double-strand breaks create cellular havoc that can lead to systemic degeneration.

A critical enzyme that repairs double-strand DNA breaks is PARP1.46-48 For the PARP1 enzyme to function it requires lots of NAD+.49,50 ...."

http://www.lifeexten...rotocol/Page-01

 

...The idea is to protect the body from radiation exposure here on earth, either naturally occurring or doctor-inflicted,” he says. “If I were going to have an X-ray or a CT scan, I would take NMN beforehand.” He already has plans to go even farther than earth: NASA is collaborating with Sinclair’s group on the human tests to see if it’s possible to insulate astronauts from the effects of cosmic radiation in space..."

http://time.com/4711...dna-from-aging/

 

Mao Z, Hine C, Tian X, et al. SIRT6 promotes DNA repair under stress by activating PARP1. Science. 2011;332(6036):1443-6.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5472447/

 

Kim MY, Zhang T, Kraus WL. Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation by PARP-1: 'PAR-laying' NAD+ into a nuclear signal. Genes Dev. 2005;19(17):1951-67.

http://genesdev.cshl...19/17/1951.long

 

 

 

 



#13 Michael Lasky

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 5
  • Location:NY

Posted 30 October 2017 - 03:19 PM

I think you're worried about the wrong thing.  Logically, you should devote most of your attention to the highest probability threats to your life.  Merely traveling to the CT examination by a car is a greater threat to your life (car accident) than the CT.  I've had CT's - I needed them.  The risk / reward was clearly in favor of the CT.  It's always a question of relative risk.   Smoking, alcohol, eating meat - all pose larger risks to your life than a CT scan.  Merely being hospitalized, and not having any imaging studies poses a larger risk than a CT - medical  misadventures, hospital acquired infections, etc.....  Basically, don't sweat the small stuff.  And a CT is small stuff.  


  • Ill informed x 1

#14 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 31 October 2017 - 12:25 AM

One CT scan is small stuff. I know people who have CTs annually or even quarterly for certain health conditions and health risks. The risk/reward is likely in their favor, but having this many CT scans could still add up to a significant risk.


  • Agree x 1

#15 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 01 November 2017 - 12:18 AM

I agree of course with the risk/benefit balance but the area has lot of uncertainties due to statistics and methodology. In any case I noticed my doctors are increasingly cautious and are very selective differentiating low and high dose CT scans (e.g. for chest). In any case in this area I really tend to err on the safest possible side and try to protect myself .....

 

"...The effective doses from diagnostic CT procedures are typically estimated to be in the range of 1 to 10 mSv. This range is not much less than the lowest doses of 5 to 20 mSv estimated to have been received by some of the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs. These survivors, who are estimated to have experienced doses slightly larger than those encountered in CT, have demonstrated a small but increased radiation-related excess relative risk for cancer mortality....

...There is considerable uncertainty regarding the risk estimates for low levels of radiation exposure as commonly experienced in diagnostic radiology procedures. This is because the risk is quite low compared to the natural risk of cancer. At low doses, the radiation-related excess risk, which is thought to be proportional to dose, tends to be dwarfed by statistical and other variation in the background risk level..."

https://www.fda.gov/...s/ucm115329.htm

 

“The jury is still out on whether there is a small cancer risk,” says Donald Frush, chief of pediatric radiology at Duke University Medical Center. “But the safest thing is to assume that no amount of radiation is safe. And if we find out in 20 years that a little bit was not harmful, then what did we lose by trying to minimize the dose?”

https://www.scientif...se-risk-cancer/

 



#16 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 02 November 2017 - 06:53 AM

By the way, this statement posted earlier is certainly not true: "Merely traveling to the CT examination by a car is a greater threat to your life (car accident) than the CT."

 

That is, unless you're following Ark's suggestion and you got very drunk in advance. ;) The actual risk of a fatal cancer from a CT scan is  perhaps 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 2,000. The chances of dying in a car crash on a given trip are less than one in a million.


  • Needs references x 1
  • Informative x 1

#17 joelcairo

  • Guest
  • 586 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • NO

Posted 02 November 2017 - 08:27 PM

In response to "needs references", here's an article from the FDA estimating that one CT scan delivering a radiation dose of 10 millisieverts adds a 1 in 2,000 risk of fatal cancer. There's also a table showing that different types of CT scans generally deliver either more or less than this amount.

 

https://www.fda.gov/...s/ucm115329.htm

 


Edited by joelcairo, 02 November 2017 - 08:28 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#18 dazed1

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 4
  • Location:/
  • NO

Posted 13 November 2017 - 11:23 AM

 

Ginger is crazy potent.


  • Informative x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ct scan, radiation, xray

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users