Kdtyjb

Interesting examples of non-locally compact topological groups

Would an alien lifeform be able to achieve space travel if lacking in vision?

Autumning in love

Stop battery usage [Ubuntu 18]

Working around an AWS network ACL rule limit

Why is "Captain Marvel" translated as male in Portugal?

Problem when applying foreach loop

Was credit for the black hole image misattributed?

Determine whether f is a function, an injection, a surjection

How does modal jazz use chord progressions?

How to colour the US map with Yellow, Green, Red and Blue to minimize the number of states with the colour of Green

Make it rain characters

Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?

What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?

Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?

Passing functions in C++

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

What did Darwin mean by 'squib' here?

Communication vs. Technical skills ,which is more relevant for today's QA engineer positions?

Statistical model of ligand substitution

Single author papers against my advisor's will?

How do you clear the ApexPages.getMessages() collection in a test?

Why does this iterative way of solving of equation work?

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Why use gamma over alpha radiation?

1

$begingroup$

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 ad 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

share|cite|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan

32311

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.

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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♦
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @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♦
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @dmckee Do helium-ion particle therapies get used clinically outside of trial scenarios? I looked for examples (admittedly a rather surface-level search) and didn't find any.
  $endgroup$
  – Emilio Pisanty
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Emilo I had a student get a placement as an apprentice radiation physicist with the Mayo Clinic (and after a year they sent him to their specialized graduate program, yeah!), and he was training on that kind of kit, so it is in use. I don't know if those uses are "trials" or not.
  $endgroup$
  – dmckee♦
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

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 ad 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

share|cite|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan

32311

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.

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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♦
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @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♦
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @dmckee Do helium-ion particle therapies get used clinically outside of trial scenarios? I looked for examples (admittedly a rather surface-level search) and didn't find any.
  $endgroup$
  – Emilio Pisanty
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Emilo I had a student get a placement as an apprentice radiation physicist with the Mayo Clinic (and after a year they sent him to their specialized graduate program, yeah!), and he was training on that kind of kit, so it is in use. I don't know if those uses are "trials" or not.
  $endgroup$
  – dmckee♦
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

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 ad 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

share|cite|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan

32311

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.

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan

32311

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.

share|cite|improve this question

asked 1 hour ago

Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan

32311

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 1 hour ago

Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan

32311

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 1 hour ago

Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan

32311

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

86.7k23217436

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  51 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
  $endgroup$
  – Emilio Pisanty
  50 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  a tumour on the skin?
  $endgroup$
  – Ubaid Hassan
  48 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  45 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

S. McGrewS. McGrew

9,35321237

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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♦
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
  $endgroup$
  – Aaron Stevens
  38 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

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.

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

2

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

86.7k23217436

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  51 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
  $endgroup$
  – Emilio Pisanty
  50 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  a tumour on the skin?
  $endgroup$
  – Ubaid Hassan
  48 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  45 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

86.7k23217436

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  51 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
  $endgroup$
  – Emilio Pisanty
  50 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  a tumour on the skin?
  $endgroup$
  – Ubaid Hassan
  48 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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
  45 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a 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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

86.7k23217436

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

86.7k23217436

answered 1 hour ago

Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

86.7k23217436

answered 1 hour ago

Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

86.7k23217436

1

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

S. McGrewS. McGrew

9,35321237

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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♦
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
  $endgroup$
  – Aaron Stevens
  38 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

S. McGrewS. McGrew

9,35321237

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  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♦
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
  $endgroup$
  – Aaron Stevens
  38 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

S. McGrewS. McGrew

9,35321237

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

S. McGrewS. McGrew

9,35321237

answered 1 hour ago

S. McGrewS. McGrew

9,35321237

answered 1 hour ago

S. McGrewS. McGrew

9,35321237