Why use gamma over alpha radiation?How to calculate gamma radiation shielding?How 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?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?Why is radiation dangerous?Harm from gamma radiation compared to beta radiation
Does anyone recognize these rockets, and their location?
Redirecting output only on a successful command call
2 Managed Packages in 1 Dev Org
How do I gain the trust of other PCs?
Why do you need to heat the pan before heating the olive oil?
Having some issue with notation in a Hilbert space
Manager wants to hire me; HR does not. How to proceed?
Can I drive in EU states and Switzerland with German proof of a surrendered U.S. license?
Print the phrase "And she said, 'But that's his.'" using only the alphabet
How did the European Union reach the figure of 3% as a maximum allowed deficit?
Is swap gate equivalent to just exchanging the wire of the two qubits?
What does a/.b[c][[1]] mean?
How Linux command "mount -a" works
What is the context for Napoleon's quote "[the Austrians] did not know the value of five minutes"?
My student in one course asks for paid tutoring in another course. Appropriate?
Why can't we feel the Earth's revolution?
Converting 3x7 to a 1x7. Is it possible with only existing parts?
What kind of chart is this?
100-doors puzzle
How would Japanese people react to someone refusing to say “itadakimasu” for religious reasons?
How can I detect if I'm in a subshell?
Catching a robber on one line
How to sort human readable size
What are the mechanical differences between Adapt and Monstrosity?
Why use gamma over alpha radiation?
How to calculate gamma radiation shielding?How 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?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?Why is radiation dangerous?Harm from gamma radiation compared to beta radiation
$begingroup$
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 Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
$endgroup$
|
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 Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
$endgroup$
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
Apr 14 at 20:31
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:33
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:36
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
Apr 14 at 23:35
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
Apr 15 at 2:44
|
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 Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
$endgroup$
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 Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
asked Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
edited Apr 15 at 0:32
Ubaid Hassan
asked Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
asked Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
asked Apr 14 at 20:19
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
938419
938419
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
Apr 14 at 20:31
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:33
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:36
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
Apr 14 at 23:35
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
Apr 15 at 2:44
|
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
Apr 14 at 20:31
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:33
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:36
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
Apr 14 at 23:35
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
Apr 15 at 2:44
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
Apr 14 at 20:31
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 20:31
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:33
$begingroup$
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:33
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:36
$begingroup$
@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♦
Apr 14 at 20:36
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
Apr 14 at 23:35
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 23:35
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
Apr 15 at 2:44
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 2:44
|
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 Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 21:00
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
Apr 14 at 21:01
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 21:02
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
Apr 14 at 21:06
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
Apr 15 at 7:02
|
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 Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
$endgroup$
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:47
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 14 at 21:12
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 22:11
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
);
);
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 Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 21:00
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
Apr 14 at 21:01
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 21:02
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
Apr 14 at 21:06
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
Apr 15 at 7:02
|
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 Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 21:00
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
Apr 14 at 21:01
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 21:02
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
Apr 14 at 21:06
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
Apr 15 at 7:02
|
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 Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
$endgroup$
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 Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
answered Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
answered Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
answered Apr 14 at 20:41
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.4k23223456
88.4k23223456
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 21:00
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
Apr 14 at 21:01
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 21:02
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
Apr 14 at 21:06
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
Apr 15 at 7:02
|
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
Apr 14 at 21:00
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
Apr 14 at 21:01
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 21:02
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
Apr 14 at 21:06
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
Apr 15 at 7:02
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 21:00
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 21:00
1
1
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
Apr 14 at 21:01
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
Apr 14 at 21:01
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 21:02
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 21:02
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
Apr 14 at 21:06
$begingroup$
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
Apr 14 at 21:06
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
Apr 15 at 7:02
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 7:02
|
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 Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
$endgroup$
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:47
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 14 at 21:12
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 22:11
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 Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
$endgroup$
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:47
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 14 at 21:12
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 22:11
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 Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
$endgroup$
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 Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
answered Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
answered Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
answered Apr 14 at 20:42
S. McGrewS. McGrew
10.6k21342
10.6k21342
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:47
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 14 at 21:12
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 22:11
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:47
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 14 at 21:12
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 22:11
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:47
$begingroup$
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:47
3
3
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 14 at 21:12
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 14 at 21:12
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 22:11
$begingroup$
agreed, dmckee appears to know a lot
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
Apr 14 at 22:11
add a comment |
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
Apr 14 at 20:31
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:33
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♦
Apr 14 at 20:36
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
Apr 14 at 23:35
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
Apr 15 at 2:44