Why use gamma over alpha radiation? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar...
G-Code for resetting to 100% speed
Did Kevin spill real chili?
How does cp -a work
If Jon Snow became King of the Seven Kingdoms what would his regnal number be?
Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author
3 doors, three guards, one stone
The logistics of corpse disposal
List *all* the tuples!
Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?
What is this single-engine low-wing propeller plane?
Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system?
Single word antonym of "flightless"
Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?
Disable hyphenation for an entire paragraph
Does surprise arrest existing movement?
How to assign captions for two tables in LaTeX?
Sorting numerically
Models of set theory where not every set can be linearly ordered
If 'B is more likely given A', then 'A is more likely given B'
Java 8 stream max() function argument type Comparator vs Comparable
Stars Make Stars
Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?
Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?
How can I fade player when goes inside or outside of the area?
Why use gamma over alpha radiation?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionHow to calculate gamma radiation shielding?Background gamma radiationHow does radiation degrade mechanical parts and electronic devices?Why did scientists use a zinc-sulfide coated screen to detect the alpha, beta, and gamma radiation?Why is there only alpha and beta (and gamma) decay?Radiation and cancerRadiation distribution in subcritical core after meltdown?Why is radiometric dating only considered a use of alpha and beta radiation?Is my tritium keychain emitting significant amounts of radiation?How would a fast-moving atom interact with a body?
$begingroup$
In radiotherapy, the goal is to kill as many cancer cells in a localised area without killing normal cells right? So what possible reason would there be to use gamma irradiation over alpha irradiation?
Gamma is not as good at ionising and damaging cells and atoms that make them up as alpha is. it is also very good transmitting through hard AND soft surfaces so gamma irradiation results in much more collateral damage than alpha irradiation. Alpha particles are absorbed easily and cause more damage to cells.
So why are gamma waves used instead of alpha particles in radiotherapy?
electromagnetic-radiation radiation medical-physics
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
In radiotherapy, the goal is to kill as many cancer cells in a localised area without killing normal cells right? So what possible reason would there be to use gamma irradiation over alpha irradiation?
Gamma is not as good at ionising and damaging cells and atoms that make them up as alpha is. it is also very good transmitting through hard AND soft surfaces so gamma irradiation results in much more collateral damage than alpha irradiation. Alpha particles are absorbed easily and cause more damage to cells.
So why are gamma waves used instead of alpha particles in radiotherapy?
electromagnetic-radiation radiation medical-physics
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Can you show your source saying that alpha particles are damaging to cells? I don't think this is true. I think beta is usually used
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
Heavy particle (proton, alpha, and even carbon nulei) beam therapies have been a thing for a couple of decades now, but ... they require more demanding standards of the beam generating kit, the radiation physicists who make the treatment plans, and the technician who run the kit.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Heavy particle have two advantages in this area. First and foremost they can (with adequate control) deliver their energy in a more localized way. Secondly the so called "quality factor" of the radiation is higher; that figure quantifies the amount of biological damage done per unit of energy delivered. Combined the two effects mean much less damage to healthy tissue.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
At a more basic level than dmckee's comment, the OP may not understand that this requires alphas from a particle accelerator rather than alphas from a radioactive source. Only extremely high-energy alphas will make it through the epidermis.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
I've been through proton beam treatment. Also got a thorough tour of the superconducting cyclotron, & conversed with the physicist in charge of the cyclotron. The Bragg peak is the real key to ion beam therapy: not only does the beam stop at a specific depth, but it dumps energy at a much higher rate just as it's stopping. While gamma or x-ray beams are attenuated exponentially and thus deposit more dose on their way to the tumor and beyond the tumor than in the tumor, delivered dose by a (monoenergetic )proton beam gradually increases with depth, then sharply peaks, then stops.
$endgroup$
– S. McGrew
23 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
In radiotherapy, the goal is to kill as many cancer cells in a localised area without killing normal cells right? So what possible reason would there be to use gamma irradiation over alpha irradiation?
Gamma is not as good at ionising and damaging cells and atoms that make them up as alpha is. it is also very good transmitting through hard AND soft surfaces so gamma irradiation results in much more collateral damage than alpha irradiation. Alpha particles are absorbed easily and cause more damage to cells.
So why are gamma waves used instead of alpha particles in radiotherapy?
electromagnetic-radiation radiation medical-physics
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
In radiotherapy, the goal is to kill as many cancer cells in a localised area without killing normal cells right? So what possible reason would there be to use gamma irradiation over alpha irradiation?
Gamma is not as good at ionising and damaging cells and atoms that make them up as alpha is. it is also very good transmitting through hard AND soft surfaces so gamma irradiation results in much more collateral damage than alpha irradiation. Alpha particles are absorbed easily and cause more damage to cells.
So why are gamma waves used instead of alpha particles in radiotherapy?
electromagnetic-radiation radiation medical-physics
electromagnetic-radiation radiation medical-physics
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Ubaid Hassan
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
asked yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
37513
37513
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
Can you show your source saying that alpha particles are damaging to cells? I don't think this is true. I think beta is usually used
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
Heavy particle (proton, alpha, and even carbon nulei) beam therapies have been a thing for a couple of decades now, but ... they require more demanding standards of the beam generating kit, the radiation physicists who make the treatment plans, and the technician who run the kit.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Heavy particle have two advantages in this area. First and foremost they can (with adequate control) deliver their energy in a more localized way. Secondly the so called "quality factor" of the radiation is higher; that figure quantifies the amount of biological damage done per unit of energy delivered. Combined the two effects mean much less damage to healthy tissue.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
At a more basic level than dmckee's comment, the OP may not understand that this requires alphas from a particle accelerator rather than alphas from a radioactive source. Only extremely high-energy alphas will make it through the epidermis.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
I've been through proton beam treatment. Also got a thorough tour of the superconducting cyclotron, & conversed with the physicist in charge of the cyclotron. The Bragg peak is the real key to ion beam therapy: not only does the beam stop at a specific depth, but it dumps energy at a much higher rate just as it's stopping. While gamma or x-ray beams are attenuated exponentially and thus deposit more dose on their way to the tumor and beyond the tumor than in the tumor, delivered dose by a (monoenergetic )proton beam gradually increases with depth, then sharply peaks, then stops.
$endgroup$
– S. McGrew
23 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Can you show your source saying that alpha particles are damaging to cells? I don't think this is true. I think beta is usually used
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
Heavy particle (proton, alpha, and even carbon nulei) beam therapies have been a thing for a couple of decades now, but ... they require more demanding standards of the beam generating kit, the radiation physicists who make the treatment plans, and the technician who run the kit.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Heavy particle have two advantages in this area. First and foremost they can (with adequate control) deliver their energy in a more localized way. Secondly the so called "quality factor" of the radiation is higher; that figure quantifies the amount of biological damage done per unit of energy delivered. Combined the two effects mean much less damage to healthy tissue.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
At a more basic level than dmckee's comment, the OP may not understand that this requires alphas from a particle accelerator rather than alphas from a radioactive source. Only extremely high-energy alphas will make it through the epidermis.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
I've been through proton beam treatment. Also got a thorough tour of the superconducting cyclotron, & conversed with the physicist in charge of the cyclotron. The Bragg peak is the real key to ion beam therapy: not only does the beam stop at a specific depth, but it dumps energy at a much higher rate just as it's stopping. While gamma or x-ray beams are attenuated exponentially and thus deposit more dose on their way to the tumor and beyond the tumor than in the tumor, delivered dose by a (monoenergetic )proton beam gradually increases with depth, then sharply peaks, then stops.
$endgroup$
– S. McGrew
23 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Can you show your source saying that alpha particles are damaging to cells? I don't think this is true. I think beta is usually used
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
Can you show your source saying that alpha particles are damaging to cells? I don't think this is true. I think beta is usually used
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
7
7
$begingroup$
Heavy particle (proton, alpha, and even carbon nulei) beam therapies have been a thing for a couple of decades now, but ... they require more demanding standards of the beam generating kit, the radiation physicists who make the treatment plans, and the technician who run the kit.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Heavy particle (proton, alpha, and even carbon nulei) beam therapies have been a thing for a couple of decades now, but ... they require more demanding standards of the beam generating kit, the radiation physicists who make the treatment plans, and the technician who run the kit.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Heavy particle have two advantages in this area. First and foremost they can (with adequate control) deliver their energy in a more localized way. Secondly the so called "quality factor" of the radiation is higher; that figure quantifies the amount of biological damage done per unit of energy delivered. Combined the two effects mean much less damage to healthy tissue.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Heavy particle have two advantages in this area. First and foremost they can (with adequate control) deliver their energy in a more localized way. Secondly the so called "quality factor" of the radiation is higher; that figure quantifies the amount of biological damage done per unit of energy delivered. Combined the two effects mean much less damage to healthy tissue.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
At a more basic level than dmckee's comment, the OP may not understand that this requires alphas from a particle accelerator rather than alphas from a radioactive source. Only extremely high-energy alphas will make it through the epidermis.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
yesterday
$begingroup$
At a more basic level than dmckee's comment, the OP may not understand that this requires alphas from a particle accelerator rather than alphas from a radioactive source. Only extremely high-energy alphas will make it through the epidermis.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
I've been through proton beam treatment. Also got a thorough tour of the superconducting cyclotron, & conversed with the physicist in charge of the cyclotron. The Bragg peak is the real key to ion beam therapy: not only does the beam stop at a specific depth, but it dumps energy at a much higher rate just as it's stopping. While gamma or x-ray beams are attenuated exponentially and thus deposit more dose on their way to the tumor and beyond the tumor than in the tumor, delivered dose by a (monoenergetic )proton beam gradually increases with depth, then sharply peaks, then stops.
$endgroup$
– S. McGrew
23 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've been through proton beam treatment. Also got a thorough tour of the superconducting cyclotron, & conversed with the physicist in charge of the cyclotron. The Bragg peak is the real key to ion beam therapy: not only does the beam stop at a specific depth, but it dumps energy at a much higher rate just as it's stopping. While gamma or x-ray beams are attenuated exponentially and thus deposit more dose on their way to the tumor and beyond the tumor than in the tumor, delivered dose by a (monoenergetic )proton beam gradually increases with depth, then sharply peaks, then stops.
$endgroup$
– S. McGrew
23 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Gamma radiation is used when the radiation source is outside the body and we need to focus it into a tumor that's inside it. For these situations, if we used alpha radiation, it would just get stopped at the skin, which is definitely not a good thing.
This type of external-beam therapy can also be done with charged particles, known as particle therapy, in which case you have the advantage that the sources can be more consistent and that you have better control over the focusing (since you can use electrostatic lenses and magnetic fields to shape the beam). However, once you're in that arena, proton therapy is likely to have every advantage of helium-ion beams, and it will be much easier to produce.
Alpha emitters are good in situations where you can get them right next to the tumor cells you want to kill, which probably means that you're including the alpha emitter in some biochemically-active molecule (a radiopharmaceutical) that gets preferentially concentrated in the tumor.
This does seem to be used in practice, though it seems that most therapies of this type use beta emitters, which have a slightly larger radius of action.
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
i had thought the only way alpha particles were used at all was when alpha emitters would be injected inside the tumour. Couldn't this done be done on an external tumour? and if so, then wouldn't it be better than using gammas?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I suspect that most tumours that are visible from the skin are still too deep for this type of treatment, but that is ultimately a very technical biomedical question, and the choices involved depend on a whole host of non-physics factors. From a physics perspective, yes, that could be made to work. Whether that pans out in practice is a much more focused question than the scope you set out in your original question, so I won't examine it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan In this special case you are comparing the wrong options anyway. If the tumour is directly on the skin and so shallow and tiny that it can be reached by alpha radiation completely, then there is no need for expensive radiotherapy, a good scalpel will be more than enough.
$endgroup$
– mlk
18 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Alpha particles are absorbed too easily; usually within a couple of centimeters. Gammas have no such issue. Protons, on the other hand are excellent for radiation therapy because their energy can be tailored to produce a "Bragg peak" (see Wikipedia) at a selected depth, and they stop there. Any ion (protons are hydrogen ions, alphas are helium ions) shows a Bragg peak.
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Heavy ions and alphas have very short range under threshold energies. To use them as therapy beams you tune the energies with exquisite precision so that they range out just as the get to the tumor.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472755%2fwhy-use-gamma-over-alpha-radiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Gamma radiation is used when the radiation source is outside the body and we need to focus it into a tumor that's inside it. For these situations, if we used alpha radiation, it would just get stopped at the skin, which is definitely not a good thing.
This type of external-beam therapy can also be done with charged particles, known as particle therapy, in which case you have the advantage that the sources can be more consistent and that you have better control over the focusing (since you can use electrostatic lenses and magnetic fields to shape the beam). However, once you're in that arena, proton therapy is likely to have every advantage of helium-ion beams, and it will be much easier to produce.
Alpha emitters are good in situations where you can get them right next to the tumor cells you want to kill, which probably means that you're including the alpha emitter in some biochemically-active molecule (a radiopharmaceutical) that gets preferentially concentrated in the tumor.
This does seem to be used in practice, though it seems that most therapies of this type use beta emitters, which have a slightly larger radius of action.
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
i had thought the only way alpha particles were used at all was when alpha emitters would be injected inside the tumour. Couldn't this done be done on an external tumour? and if so, then wouldn't it be better than using gammas?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I suspect that most tumours that are visible from the skin are still too deep for this type of treatment, but that is ultimately a very technical biomedical question, and the choices involved depend on a whole host of non-physics factors. From a physics perspective, yes, that could be made to work. Whether that pans out in practice is a much more focused question than the scope you set out in your original question, so I won't examine it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan In this special case you are comparing the wrong options anyway. If the tumour is directly on the skin and so shallow and tiny that it can be reached by alpha radiation completely, then there is no need for expensive radiotherapy, a good scalpel will be more than enough.
$endgroup$
– mlk
18 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Gamma radiation is used when the radiation source is outside the body and we need to focus it into a tumor that's inside it. For these situations, if we used alpha radiation, it would just get stopped at the skin, which is definitely not a good thing.
This type of external-beam therapy can also be done with charged particles, known as particle therapy, in which case you have the advantage that the sources can be more consistent and that you have better control over the focusing (since you can use electrostatic lenses and magnetic fields to shape the beam). However, once you're in that arena, proton therapy is likely to have every advantage of helium-ion beams, and it will be much easier to produce.
Alpha emitters are good in situations where you can get them right next to the tumor cells you want to kill, which probably means that you're including the alpha emitter in some biochemically-active molecule (a radiopharmaceutical) that gets preferentially concentrated in the tumor.
This does seem to be used in practice, though it seems that most therapies of this type use beta emitters, which have a slightly larger radius of action.
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
i had thought the only way alpha particles were used at all was when alpha emitters would be injected inside the tumour. Couldn't this done be done on an external tumour? and if so, then wouldn't it be better than using gammas?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I suspect that most tumours that are visible from the skin are still too deep for this type of treatment, but that is ultimately a very technical biomedical question, and the choices involved depend on a whole host of non-physics factors. From a physics perspective, yes, that could be made to work. Whether that pans out in practice is a much more focused question than the scope you set out in your original question, so I won't examine it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan In this special case you are comparing the wrong options anyway. If the tumour is directly on the skin and so shallow and tiny that it can be reached by alpha radiation completely, then there is no need for expensive radiotherapy, a good scalpel will be more than enough.
$endgroup$
– mlk
18 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Gamma radiation is used when the radiation source is outside the body and we need to focus it into a tumor that's inside it. For these situations, if we used alpha radiation, it would just get stopped at the skin, which is definitely not a good thing.
This type of external-beam therapy can also be done with charged particles, known as particle therapy, in which case you have the advantage that the sources can be more consistent and that you have better control over the focusing (since you can use electrostatic lenses and magnetic fields to shape the beam). However, once you're in that arena, proton therapy is likely to have every advantage of helium-ion beams, and it will be much easier to produce.
Alpha emitters are good in situations where you can get them right next to the tumor cells you want to kill, which probably means that you're including the alpha emitter in some biochemically-active molecule (a radiopharmaceutical) that gets preferentially concentrated in the tumor.
This does seem to be used in practice, though it seems that most therapies of this type use beta emitters, which have a slightly larger radius of action.
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
$endgroup$
Gamma radiation is used when the radiation source is outside the body and we need to focus it into a tumor that's inside it. For these situations, if we used alpha radiation, it would just get stopped at the skin, which is definitely not a good thing.
This type of external-beam therapy can also be done with charged particles, known as particle therapy, in which case you have the advantage that the sources can be more consistent and that you have better control over the focusing (since you can use electrostatic lenses and magnetic fields to shape the beam). However, once you're in that arena, proton therapy is likely to have every advantage of helium-ion beams, and it will be much easier to produce.
Alpha emitters are good in situations where you can get them right next to the tumor cells you want to kill, which probably means that you're including the alpha emitter in some biochemically-active molecule (a radiopharmaceutical) that gets preferentially concentrated in the tumor.
This does seem to be used in practice, though it seems that most therapies of this type use beta emitters, which have a slightly larger radius of action.
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
87k23218438
87k23218438
$begingroup$
i had thought the only way alpha particles were used at all was when alpha emitters would be injected inside the tumour. Couldn't this done be done on an external tumour? and if so, then wouldn't it be better than using gammas?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I suspect that most tumours that are visible from the skin are still too deep for this type of treatment, but that is ultimately a very technical biomedical question, and the choices involved depend on a whole host of non-physics factors. From a physics perspective, yes, that could be made to work. Whether that pans out in practice is a much more focused question than the scope you set out in your original question, so I won't examine it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan In this special case you are comparing the wrong options anyway. If the tumour is directly on the skin and so shallow and tiny that it can be reached by alpha radiation completely, then there is no need for expensive radiotherapy, a good scalpel will be more than enough.
$endgroup$
– mlk
18 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
i had thought the only way alpha particles were used at all was when alpha emitters would be injected inside the tumour. Couldn't this done be done on an external tumour? and if so, then wouldn't it be better than using gammas?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I suspect that most tumours that are visible from the skin are still too deep for this type of treatment, but that is ultimately a very technical biomedical question, and the choices involved depend on a whole host of non-physics factors. From a physics perspective, yes, that could be made to work. Whether that pans out in practice is a much more focused question than the scope you set out in your original question, so I won't examine it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan In this special case you are comparing the wrong options anyway. If the tumour is directly on the skin and so shallow and tiny that it can be reached by alpha radiation completely, then there is no need for expensive radiotherapy, a good scalpel will be more than enough.
$endgroup$
– mlk
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
i had thought the only way alpha particles were used at all was when alpha emitters would be injected inside the tumour. Couldn't this done be done on an external tumour? and if so, then wouldn't it be better than using gammas?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
$begingroup$
i had thought the only way alpha particles were used at all was when alpha emitters would be injected inside the tumour. Couldn't this done be done on an external tumour? and if so, then wouldn't it be better than using gammas?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
I suspect that most tumours that are visible from the skin are still too deep for this type of treatment, but that is ultimately a very technical biomedical question, and the choices involved depend on a whole host of non-physics factors. From a physics perspective, yes, that could be made to work. Whether that pans out in practice is a much more focused question than the scope you set out in your original question, so I won't examine it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
I suspect that most tumours that are visible from the skin are still too deep for this type of treatment, but that is ultimately a very technical biomedical question, and the choices involved depend on a whole host of non-physics factors. From a physics perspective, yes, that could be made to work. Whether that pans out in practice is a much more focused question than the scope you set out in your original question, so I won't examine it.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
8
8
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan In this special case you are comparing the wrong options anyway. If the tumour is directly on the skin and so shallow and tiny that it can be reached by alpha radiation completely, then there is no need for expensive radiotherapy, a good scalpel will be more than enough.
$endgroup$
– mlk
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan In this special case you are comparing the wrong options anyway. If the tumour is directly on the skin and so shallow and tiny that it can be reached by alpha radiation completely, then there is no need for expensive radiotherapy, a good scalpel will be more than enough.
$endgroup$
– mlk
18 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Alpha particles are absorbed too easily; usually within a couple of centimeters. Gammas have no such issue. Protons, on the other hand are excellent for radiation therapy because their energy can be tailored to produce a "Bragg peak" (see Wikipedia) at a selected depth, and they stop there. Any ion (protons are hydrogen ions, alphas are helium ions) shows a Bragg peak.
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Heavy ions and alphas have very short range under threshold energies. To use them as therapy beams you tune the energies with exquisite precision so that they range out just as the get to the tumor.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Alpha particles are absorbed too easily; usually within a couple of centimeters. Gammas have no such issue. Protons, on the other hand are excellent for radiation therapy because their energy can be tailored to produce a "Bragg peak" (see Wikipedia) at a selected depth, and they stop there. Any ion (protons are hydrogen ions, alphas are helium ions) shows a Bragg peak.
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Heavy ions and alphas have very short range under threshold energies. To use them as therapy beams you tune the energies with exquisite precision so that they range out just as the get to the tumor.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Alpha particles are absorbed too easily; usually within a couple of centimeters. Gammas have no such issue. Protons, on the other hand are excellent for radiation therapy because their energy can be tailored to produce a "Bragg peak" (see Wikipedia) at a selected depth, and they stop there. Any ion (protons are hydrogen ions, alphas are helium ions) shows a Bragg peak.
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
$endgroup$
Alpha particles are absorbed too easily; usually within a couple of centimeters. Gammas have no such issue. Protons, on the other hand are excellent for radiation therapy because their energy can be tailored to produce a "Bragg peak" (see Wikipedia) at a selected depth, and they stop there. Any ion (protons are hydrogen ions, alphas are helium ions) shows a Bragg peak.
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
answered yesterday
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,43821237
9,43821237
1
$begingroup$
Heavy ions and alphas have very short range under threshold energies. To use them as therapy beams you tune the energies with exquisite precision so that they range out just as the get to the tumor.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Heavy ions and alphas have very short range under threshold energies. To use them as therapy beams you tune the energies with exquisite precision so that they range out just as the get to the tumor.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
Heavy ions and alphas have very short range under threshold energies. To use them as therapy beams you tune the energies with exquisite precision so that they range out just as the get to the tumor.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Heavy ions and alphas have very short range under threshold energies. To use them as therapy beams you tune the energies with exquisite precision so that they range out just as the get to the tumor.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
yesterday
add a comment |
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472755%2fwhy-use-gamma-over-alpha-radiation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Can you show your source saying that alpha particles are damaging to cells? I don't think this is true. I think beta is usually used
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
7
$begingroup$
Heavy particle (proton, alpha, and even carbon nulei) beam therapies have been a thing for a couple of decades now, but ... they require more demanding standards of the beam generating kit, the radiation physicists who make the treatment plans, and the technician who run the kit.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Heavy particle have two advantages in this area. First and foremost they can (with adequate control) deliver their energy in a more localized way. Secondly the so called "quality factor" of the radiation is higher; that figure quantifies the amount of biological damage done per unit of energy delivered. Combined the two effects mean much less damage to healthy tissue.
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
At a more basic level than dmckee's comment, the OP may not understand that this requires alphas from a particle accelerator rather than alphas from a radioactive source. Only extremely high-energy alphas will make it through the epidermis.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
yesterday
4
$begingroup$
I've been through proton beam treatment. Also got a thorough tour of the superconducting cyclotron, & conversed with the physicist in charge of the cyclotron. The Bragg peak is the real key to ion beam therapy: not only does the beam stop at a specific depth, but it dumps energy at a much higher rate just as it's stopping. While gamma or x-ray beams are attenuated exponentially and thus deposit more dose on their way to the tumor and beyond the tumor than in the tumor, delivered dose by a (monoenergetic )proton beam gradually increases with depth, then sharply peaks, then stops.
$endgroup$
– S. McGrew
23 hours ago