Lutetium-177: Latest Radioisotope For Cancer Therapy?

Though production of radioactive isotopes or radioisotopes for medical use date back to the World War II era Manhattan Project, does lutetium-177 represent the latest advances in radioisotope cancer treatment?

By: Ringo Bones

The radioisotopes – which more than 150 are now have current medical use are perhaps the most notable byproduct of humanity’s atomic energy program that dates back to the latter years of World War II. Many isotopes discovered afterwards had been tested and used to apply radiation for cancer treatment both externally and internally. The great concentrated of the radioactivity emitted by these substances is evident by the fact that their ability to penetrate body tissue is approximately the same as that of the radiation from a 2-million-volt X-ray machine. But is there anything new that can still be discovered from the somewhat esoteric field of radioisotope cancer therapy?

Thanks to small research nuclear reactors that are found in most Ivy League college’s nuclear physics labs that can be operated for around 200 US dollars an hour, many previously unknown radioactive isotopes can now be economically produced to be studied for their potential cancer therapy use. The latest of which is lutetium-177, which after extensive testing was found out to only target tumors while ignoring healthy cells – especially neuro-endocrine tumors which can be almost impossible to remove by conventional surgery alone.

Like previous radioactive isotopes used for cancer treatment, lutetium-177 is usually delivered intravenously to the body via saline solution from its shielded container. Still the lutetium-177 infusion dose is still a relatively rare medical procedure and there are still doctors and hospitals out there that are still unfamiliar with using lutetium-177 as a radioisotope for cancer treatment. Lutetium-177 is also notable for its ability to penetrate a typical cancer cell’s defenses and its side effects are less extreme in comparison to more aggressive forms of chemotherapy. And lutetium-177 is even better than radioisotope phosphorous-32 in differentiating brain tumors from normal brain tissue, thus sparking its interest as the latest procedure in radioisotope cancer therapy.     

Is Smoking Marijuana Bad For Your I.Q.?

As a long-term study on marijuana smoking was published a week ago, does marijuana use – even for legitimate medicinal purposes – bad for one’s I.Q. scores? 

By: Ringo Bones 

The 20-year long study was originally conducted in New Zealand where it drew 1,000 people observing the long-term effects of marijuana use. A significant number of the participants even started smoking marijuana when they were as young as 13- years of age. According to the results of the study, long-term cannabis use by adolescents whose brains have not yet fully developed show signs of memory loss and up to an 8-point drop in their I.Q. scores. And the worst cases of memory loss and I.Q. score reductions occur in study participants who use marijuana before their 18^th birthday at more than 4 times a week. Given the sobering study results, will this be used by some conservative right-wing politicians against the legalization of marijuana for legitimate medical use? 

Given the supposed “neutrality” of the study from the basis of where it gets its funding and where it was conducted, medical marijuana special interest groups will look at the results with suspicion – given the long shadow cast by the Ronald Reagan era sham research on marijuana use exaggerating its supposed dangers. In some jurisdictions in the United States, the legalized medical marijuana industry is now so entrenched culturally, socially and economically that further restricting its use using this study as a justification will be seen nothing more than Reagan Administration era demagoguery – as opposed to a peer-reviewed scientifically informed argument against it.  

Unhealthy Products Sponsoring The London 2012 Olympics: A Public Health Catastrophe?

 Given that the Olympic motto is: “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, are companies that sell unhealthy products sponsoring the London 2012 Olympics making the average spectator “fatter, drunker and sicker?” 

By: Ringo Bones 

Probably the only high-level scandal plaguing the 2012 Olympiad beside the security contractor G4S failing some of its obligations, the issue of companies peddling unhealthy products being allowed to sponsor every Summer Olympic event since the 1984 L.A. Olympics has been finally given the focus it desperately deserves. Many are now questioning the wisdom of Mc Donald’s, Heiniken and Coca Cola – just to name a few – being allowed by the International Olympic Committee to sponsor every Olympic event since, given that these products have the propensity of making the average Olympic enthusiasts chronic health problems like obesity, heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver, type-2 diabetes and other “diseases of civilization”. Given that the Olympic motto is the hendiatris Citius, Altius, Fortius – or in English: “Faster, Higher, Stronger”, should companies peddling unhealthy products be prevented from sponsoring any Summer Olympic events in the future? 

In a BBC interview back in July 14, 2012, former International Olympic Committee marketing director Michael Payne is also concerned of the growing number of companies who sell unhealthy food and drinks being allowed to sponsor the Summer Olympic Games. But he also stresses that if these companies were banned from sponsoring the games, the IOC would be left with a financial black hole that can’t be easily filled with other sponsors who sell much healthier products. Isn’t the Olympic Games primarily a celebration of health and fitness whether you are an Olympic hopeful or just a mere spectator? 

Given that the UK government’s budget for spreading awareness about healthier diet is way, way smaller than these multi-national corporations who spend millions every year advertising their alcoholic and sugar-saturated drinks and junk food – most ordinary folks tend to opt for a dubious eating and drinking lifestyle choice because its what they frequently see on the telly anyway. A recent public health study in Britain shows that if this current trend of an unhealthy lifestyle choice continues by the year 2050, 90% of the UK population could be overweight. This means the already burdened UK’s NHS could be strained even further with obesity and diet-related chronic health problems. At present, over-indulgent dietary related diseases kill 35-million around the world every year – 5 times more than that of tobacco related deaths. And at present, junk food and alcoholic beverage sponsors of the London 2012 Olympics still can’t be held accountable – let alone responsible – of the way their products ruin the health of the UK public. 

The Long-Term Health Consequences of the 9/11 Attacks

With President Obama's success in taking out Osama Bin Laden making the 10th Anniversary observance of the 9/11 attacks a less politically contentious one, are policymakers ignoring the long-term health consequences of the 9/11 attacks at everyone's peril?

By: Ringo Bones

Even though President Obama signed the James Zadroga Health Compensation act of 2010 - named in honor of the first responder who suddenly succumbed to the chronic health effects of the World Trade Center tower debris back in 2006 - to help those first responders, victims and cleaning crew who are suffering from chronic health problems after inhaling the toxic dust and debris when the WTC towers collapsed during the 9/11 attacks. A lot of us still wonder whether there are enough policymakers out there who are doing enough to compensate and take care of everyone affected by the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

The fallout of the WTC towers collapse are as deadly as that produced by a successfully detonated nuclear device. I mean lead from those 50,000 computer monitors, mercury from countless fluorescent light bulbs, not to mention tons of asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers back in 1971 because these two hazardous materials are yet to be banned in 1976.

It's not just first responders - the New York Fire Department and the New York Police Department personnel - that had acquired chronic health problems years after the 9/11 attacks. Cleaners, telecom engineers and contractors who spent significant amounts of time at the vicinity WTC Ground Zero area are also affected. As the WTC fallout resembles finely pulverized glass, long-term residents in the Lower Manhattan region are affected too.

Studies have shown that a little over 60,000 are already registered at risk while 18, 262 are already receiving treatment for "9/11 Syndrome". Since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Prof. Paul Lioy had analyzed the fallout dust and found out that it consists of a mixture of supposedly now-banned hazardous substances like asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs and unburned jet fuel residue. Osama Bin Laden may be dead but the fallout of the 9/11 attacks are still causing unnecessary suffering.

Radioactive Fallout’s Seven Deadliest

Even though the likelihood of atomic warfare is now exceedingly slim, do we still have to be wary of the seven deadliest elements in radioactive fallout?

By: Ringo Bones

Unfortunately, the threat to our health and well-being posed by radioactive fallout in atomic warfare and the one produced by a nuclear fission power plant accident are virtually identical. The recent Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster caused by the tragic March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami that hit the north-eastern portion of Japan – which is now had been inevitably compared to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident of April 26, 1986 – has virtually the same threat to our health and well-being posed by multi-megaton MIRVs that “might” be used in an all-out nuclear exchange.

The seven deadliest elements produced by atomic warfare and a nuclear fission power plant accident are as follows:

1)Strontium-89 - has a half-life of 53 days and is similar in effects to strontium-90.

2)Strontium-90 – has a half-life of 28 years. Absorbed in the skeleton, can injure bone and cause anemia. Emits beta particles and may also be absorbed by plants and transferred to humans in food.

3)Iodine-131 – has a half-life of 8.1 days and it primarily affects the thyroid.

4)Cesium-137 – has a half-life of 27 years. Easily absorbed by the body through the biosphere. Emits gamma rays and is a bone-seeker but it’s not as dangerous as strontium-90.

5)Barium-140 – has a half-life of 12.8 days and is similar to strontium-90 in its effects.

6)Cesium-144 – has a half-life of 282 days and has similar effects to cesium-137.

7)Plutonium-239 – primary component of nuclear weapons and a nuclear power plant’s fuel. Has a half-life of 24,000 years. Can injure the bone and cause anemia. Not as dangerous as the other elements listed because of its long half-life.

Strontium: Calcium’s Evil Alter-Ego?

Even though it got a bad reputation as an evil twin of calcium due to its presence in atomic fallout, does strontium really deserve the reputation as calcium’s evil alter-ego?

By: Ringo Bones

Given that 2011 has been declared as the UN’s International Year of Chemistry what better time to reevaluate some of the reputations that the members of the “Periodic Kingdom” seem to have unfairly deserved for the past hundred years or so. Aside from giving fireworks their rich red color, strontium seemingly got a bad rap during the 20th Century’s “Atomic Age” as the evil alter-ego of life-supporting calcium even though both belong to the Alkaline Earth Metal family of the Periodic Table.

Discovered in 1790, the name strontium is derived from Strontian, Scotland. Though much, much rarer than calcium, radioactive strontium-90 is present in significant amounts in atomic fallout – it is absorbed by bone tissue in place of calcium and enough of it destroys bone marrow and can cause cancer by emitting beta particles. But is strontium’s bad rap as the evil alter-ego of calcium really warranted?

Recent advances in medical science has just found a new use for strontium’s strange chemistry – namely as a treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Strontium ranelate – a chemical compound of stable non-radioactive form of strontium and ranelic acid – is now regularly used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis to reduce the risk of vertebral and hip fractures. Because calcium containing drugs and foods reduce strontium bioavailability by as much as 60 to 70%, strontium containing drugs that treat postmenopausal osteoporosis should be taken two hours apart from calcium-containing drugs and foods. Even though the radioactive isotope of strontium, strontium-90, can cause bone cancer, the non-radioactive stable strontium isotopes simultaneously increase bone formation and reduces bone resorption.

Prosthetic Limbs: Now Better Than Mother Nature’s?

Probably the only significant scientific spin-off of George W. Bush’s malfeasantly run global War on Terror, is current prosthetic limb technology already at par with Mother Nature’s?

By: Ringo Bones

Thanks to better body armor technology, soldiers who got wounded in action while serving George W. Bush’s malfeasantly run global War on Terror of previous years have now a better chance of surviving assault rifle shots and being hit by fragmentation grenades. Unfortunately, this resulted in a growing number of recent war veterans in need of prosthetic limbs – especially advanced myoelectric versions - that is in par with the natural one that they replace in working in everyday situations. Fortunately, prosthetic limb technology is now at a state of development that it had already received rave reviews by their recipients on how good they work in everyday situations. Given the progress of this aspect of medical science, will prosthetic limb technology ever progress to the point that it would have capabilities better than what Mother Nature has already given us? And if it ever did, will most of us opt to have the natural, perfectly-functional limbs that we are born with electively amputated in order to be replaced by better functioning artificial ones?

Dr. Bertolt Meyer – who had the misfortune of being born without a left hand and had an advanced prosthetic version installed – have stated the ethical dilemmas of such issues in a BBC Newsnight interview back in May, 21 2011. The hubbub surrounding recent advances in artificial limb technology really got the undivided attention of the mainstream press and the public-at-large during the airing of a press coverage documenting the plight of an Austrian motorcycle riding accident victim named Milo opting to have his right hand amputated after years of physiotherapy had failed to return it to full-functionality in order to be replaced by an advanced myoelectric version; Though we have to wait for a year to evaluate the success of the procedure.
People opting to have the perfectly-functional limbs that they are born with be replaced by better functioning myoelectric robotic versions reminds me of a science fiction novel I read a few years ago. Titled Antibodies, this David J. Skal work revolves around a cyber-punk themed future where people deliberately mutilate themselves in order to have their perfectly functional limbs and sensory organs – like eyes and ears – be surgically replaced by artificially implanted versions that work far better than the ones they are naturally born with. Will this be the brave new world for the future of artificial limb technology?