Why use gamma over alpha 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 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
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.
$endgroup$
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
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♦
59 mins 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
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.
$endgroup$
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
electromagnetic-radiation radiation medical-physics
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
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
asked 1 hour ago
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
32311
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.
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.
$begingroup$
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♦
59 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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♦
59 mins ago
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
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
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
$begingroup$
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
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
$begingroup$
@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
$begingroup$
@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♦
59 mins 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♦
59 mins ago
add a comment |
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 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
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
43 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
39 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.
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♦
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
33 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.
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 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
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
43 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
39 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.
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
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
43 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
39 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.
answered 1 hour ago
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
86.7k23217436
$endgroup$
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 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
answered 1 hour ago
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
86.7k23217436
86.7k23217436
$begingroup$
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
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
43 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
39 mins ago
add a 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
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
43 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
39 mins 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
45 mins 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
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
@UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
43 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
39 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
39 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.
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♦
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
33 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.
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♦
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
33 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.
answered 1 hour ago
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,35321237
$endgroup$
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 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
answered 1 hour ago
S. McGrewS. McGrew
9,35321237
9,35321237
$begingroup$
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♦
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
33 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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♦
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
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♦
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
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♦
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
@dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
33 mins ago
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
$begingroup$
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♦
59 mins ago