Radiation Therapy for Cancer Gives Lethal Dose

by , under Big Pharma, Contemporary Cancer Topics, Conventional Treatments

I came across a Radiation Dosage Chart that gives the effects of radiation levels on people.  The chart was fairly detailed and gave a lot of information about the increasing effects of radiation at levels that people may experience in normal life, as well as in other situations.  This is some very important, as well as very revealing information.

Some effects range from the background dosage received by an average person on an average day (10 microSieverts); a chest x-ray (100 microSieverts); to the EPA’s yearly limit on radiation exposure to average citizens (1,000 microSieverts).  Surprisingly, the level of radiation that a woman who gets a mammogram is exposed to is 3,000 microSieverts (3.0 milliSieverts) or three times the level that people are supposed to be exposed to in one year!  An average CT scan exposes a patient to 10,000 microSieverts (10 milliSieverts).  The annual dose where lifetime risk of cancer is significant is 100,000 microSieverts (100 milliSieverts).  The dose limit for US radiation workers working in life-saving operations is 250,000 microSieverts (250 milliSieverts).

The extremely harmful levels of radiation exposure range from 1,000 milliSieverts that cause temporary radiation sickness to 6,000 milliSieverts that is usually fatal.  The most telling piece of information on this chart is that the fatal dose of radiation exposure is 10,000 milliSieverts.  The next level of exposure is 20,000 milliSieverts, and is the dosage that is used in highly targeted cancer radiotherapy!

This is an astounding piece of information.  It will probably be very surprising information for people who believe the pronouncements from the mass media that is controlled by the medical establishment.  It is not as surprising to people who have done honest research on radiation therapy.  What is surprising is that this information is actually available because the medical mafia controls most information very tightly.  In fact, the web site that posted this chart actually removed the reference to the radiation dosage level (20,000 milliSieverts) from the chart.  When I last attempted to access the web site, it was unavailable.  Mere coincidence or is this evidence of manipulation or the financial influence of Big Pharma and related industries?

When radiation was first discovered, physicians and corporations were marketing radioactive substances as medicines and treatments for diseases. It looks like we’ve come around full circle when we accept pronouncements from medical professionals that radiation is a cancer treatment, when the truth is that radiation therapy is toxic, and actually causes cancer.  Even more astonishing is that radiotherapy, as shown above, is shown to give a lethal exposure level of radiation.

Although radiation doses are fractionated (broken up into smaller daily doses to add up to the total dosage), radiation exposure is cumulative.  The typical fractionation schedule for adults is 1,800-2,000 milliSieverts.  This is a level that is the cause of temporary radiation sickness to severe radiation poisoning.  These exposure levels are associated with nausea, low blood cell counts, and vomiting.  These symptoms are seen in radiation therapy patients.

This is critical information for people considering what types of cancer treatments to employ.  It is very alarming and disturbing to think that medical treatments are actually highly toxic and harmful.  It should make you strongly evaluate the use of radiation therapy for a cancer treatment.  Be sure to get as much information as you can so that you can make an informed decision.


  1. TheEvil80GraySurvivor

    …but you totally misinterpret that chart. A 10,000 milliSievert fatal dose is a SINGLE EVENT WHOLE BODY dosage and has no relationship to targeted radiation therapy. Is radiation therapy tough on the body? Sure. But X-rays are not some exotic evil things – they are simply photons, the same photons as any other light, just vibrating faster (just a bit faster than ultraviolet light, in fact), and therefore with more energy. Since X-ray photons are light, they are easily focused, just like any other light. This means that in radiation therapy, the beam is focused on the tumor and the damage to surrounding tissue is greatly reduced. You can try this for yourself. Take a magnifying glass out in full sunlight and put it between the sun and your hand, with your hand just touching the rim of the magnifying glass. You will feel nothing more than the warmth of the sun. Move your hand away from the lens until your hand reaches the lens’s focal point, on the other hand, and you will feel the heat (and pain) very quickly from the FOCUSED beam of photons. If you wish to avoid the pain, you can substitute burning a hole in a piece of paper instead. Either will quickly demonstrate the importance of focus with regard to radiation exposure.
    I am a prostate cancer survivor, and during therapy I received not 10,000, not 20,000, but 80,000 milliSieverts (80 Grays)of radiation – 2,000 milliSieverts at a time, over 40 sessions. That 2,000 milliSieverts was subdivided into 7 sub-doses which were beamed into my body from 7 different angles, reducing the total dosage (and damage) to tissues and organs surrounding my prostate by a factor of seven. Were there side effects? Yes, but they were bearable. The point I wish to make here, however, is that if the logic in your article was even close to valid, I would now be very much dead. If you want to argue the long-term damage my body incurred, that is a different issue. But the radiation/body interaction is a strange animal – high-energy photons are like tiny tiny bullets. Yes, they are extremely dangerous, yes, they cause damage, but it is impossible to know *what* exactly they have – or have NOT damaged. There are still survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl walking this earth. by your logic they should all be long dead – yet they live. Some may die of radiation-related illness, some may not. It is simply impossible to say.

  2. admin

    I know the details of the chart. The chart was talking about acute radiation exposures. I was just trying to get people’s attention. And from your response, I can see that you agree that radiation is toxic and very damaging to the body. Which brings us right back to the ‘poisons and toxins being used for medicine’ paradigm. It’s an old idea that is very obsolete, even though it is used heavily in today’s society. But just because it’s being widely used doesn’t make it the best cancer treatment.

    I never claimed that X-rays were exotic or evil. They are merely high energy photons, but are also considered ionizing radiation. They are light, but high energy photons in the visible spectrum won’t consistently damage your DNA like X-rays will! That’s why the X-ray technician at the hospital hides behind leaded walls. So your metaphor about the sun’s radiation being analogous to X-ray and ionizing radiation is flawed.

    I’ll also give you the point that radiation therapy has evolved to the point where they focus radiation beams better than they used to in the past. But that doesn’t mean that the radiation is any safer; only the application isn’t a full-body event like it used to be. Which brings us right back to the ‘poisons and toxins as medicine’ paradigm. There has to be a better way, and thank goodness there is. But there is no way that focused radiation application can hit ONLY tumor tissue. They can only minimize the number of healthy cells irradiated. And radiation is a known cause of cancer.

    I stated in the article that the usual radiotherapy dosage was between 1,800-2,000 milliSieverts, so we agree there. I’m very glad that your treatment was successful. I want all cancer treatments to work for all patients. I just don’t want anyone experiencing a relapse or any side effects from any treatments. A reduction in damage and radiation dosage to other parts of your body is a reduction, but not an elimination of damage and/or side effects. I sincerely hope that you don’t have any.

    Radiation is not like getting shot with tiny bullets because radiation exposure is cumulative. I think that the exposure level is lessened with targeted exposure, but it is still exposure to radiation which is highly toxic and damaging to the body. The fact of the matter that is not debatable is that radiation is a treatment that is poisonous to the body. Whether you give it in whole body doses, or pinpoint beams of light, it doesn’t alter the toxic nature of radiation. That means that it is a death-based treatment because radiation kills cells. It doesn’t give life or help cells live. It damages all cells, healthy cells as well as diseased cells. A more advanced, wholistic approach (i.e., a life-based treatment) would strengthen healthy cells and help them to live while weakening, killing, or converting diseased cells back into healthy cells.

    Some people experience little side effects, most experience some side effects, a few experience severe side effects. In reality, the effectiveness of most treatments is an exercise in probability, and also can be due to other unaccounted factors, such as: constitutional strength of the patient, diet of the patient, mental attitude, condition of the patient’s immune system, family influences, living style, exposure to environmental toxins, etc. That’s why I try to educate and inform people about good principles of health because they can tilt the odds in one’s favor. That’s all that we can really do, because no treatment, NONE of them, work 100% of the time.

  3. Richard

    I think the point is that different tissues have vastly differing sensitivity to radiation. The intestines and the bone marrow are both very sensitive to radiation; when someone receives a fatal dose of radiation, spread over their whole body, they die because their blood cannot be replenished, and because their intestines (which replace their lining every 3 days) cannot regrow. The dose of 6 Sieverts spread over the whole body kill the bowel and the bone marrow, which will in turn kill the exposed person. Radiation is targeted during treatment to avoid most of the body, and it can selectively kill a tumour whilst not exposing the other sensitive tissues. This is why you can survive 10 or 20 Sieverts in a therapeutic setting.

    The limit set on the radiation workers at 250milliSievert is the upper limit at which essentially nothing happens; the point of the radiation limit is to prevent harm to the healthy workers. That you need a dose of 10 Sieverts (or 10,000 milliSieverts) to actually kill cancer cells is not surprising.

    I think also the point is you’re trading risk when you take radiation therapy. The therapy is not risk free, but you only accept radiation therapy when you intend to balance the risk of the therapy against the genuine and much greater risk of leaving a cancer untreated – it would not be acceptable for a healthy person to be exposed to the level of radiation used in radiotherapy, because the hazard of the treatment would not be balanced by a reduction of the risk from treating the tumour — you therefore can’t compare the acceptable dose limit for a healthy worker in a power plant to the acceptable dose for a cancer patient, because you have different assumptions about their state of health and what is in their best interest.

  4. richard

    my wife was given radiation she was given 19 treatments two months be for she passed away all her organs started shutting down If we wher told what the side effects would be I don’t think i would of left her get radiation treatments what I would like to know is if she would of been told the effects an took a different way could she have survived or at least had a chance

  5. Webmaster

    I’m very sorry for your loss. There’s really no way for us to know whether or not your wife would have lived longer with alternative cancer treatments than she did with radiation. But I think that her chances for survival and/or her quality of life would have been better with alternative cancer treatments. Most of them are less toxic than radiation and chemotherapy. I wouldn’t suggest that you torture yourself by questioning how you dealt with your wife’s cancer. You did the best that you could with the information that you had. That’s all you can do.

Leave a Reply