4 ms·

This might be one of those cures that works like the old T-Gel shampoo (ie: carcinogenic coal tar that turned out to be immune-suppressing enough to prevent dan

This might be one of those cures that works like the old T-Gel shampoo (ie: carcinogenic coal tar that turned out to be immune-suppressing enough to prevent dandruff eventually caused cancer). Though, at the ages when Osteoarthritis shows up, it might be better to take on a smaller risk of monitor-able extremity cancer than the pretty large QoL reduction of severe arthritis.

el_benhameen 1y ago
There is a theory (theory! very theoretical) that the risk from radiation does not scale linearly and that low doses of radiation might actually be protective. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
- CjHuber 1y ago
  So we are going full circle now?
  - nyc_data_geek 1y ago
    Radiation is good for you now, a little bit, as a treat.
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. J. Frank Parnell (from the movie Repo Man).
- nsxwolf 1y ago
  The residential radon mitigation industry does not like this.
  - trhway 1y ago
    radon radiation is primarily alpha. That is never good in any dose. >In this multicenter trial, researchers enrolled 114 patients with moderate-to-mild knee osteoarthritis across three academic centers in Korea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of two radiation regimens — a very low dose (0.3 Gy) or a low dose (3 Gy) This is gamma. Those doses are "low" because delivery here is localized. If given full-body the 3Gy has something like 25-50% mortality. The cancer patient are delivered like 20-80Gy into the tumor and surrounding tissues which just kills cells outright. The point is that "radiation" is multiparametric.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      It's not really the radiation from radon itself which is the problem, but rather radon's daughters. Radon is a noble gas, so it's not going to accumulate in you and doesn't get much chance to do damage to people even if they inhale it; they'll just exhale it moments later before barely any of it can decay. But radon's daughters, the chain of atoms which are produced from the decay of radon and each other, aren't gases, so if stagnant air with radon sticks around it's going to 'rain' an atomic dust of radioactive isotopes which can accumulate and, if disturbed, can be inhaled and stick with people.
  - jerlam 1y ago
    On the other hand, the radon health cave industry is overjoyed and vindicated. And people with radon in their basement can start hosting "wellness sessions".
- lupusreal 1y ago
  It's probably reasonable to say that radiation actually being beneficial is very theoretical, but the linear no-threshold model of harm from radiation is definitely in the theoretical category too. It's used because it's very conservative, but evidence supporting it for low radiation dosages is very weak.
- toss1 1y ago
  Perhaps the word you are looking for is "conjecture that the risk from radiation ..." ??
- CGMthrowaway 1y ago
  Like sunlight on skin?
- prmph 1y ago
  There is the alternative observation that sometimes the effect of harmful things is based on the frequency and length of exposure, not so much its magnitude. Compare with the CTE, where a few bone-crushing traumas do not seem to cause it, but chronic long-term low grade impacts is more likely to cause it. Another example, I probably could eat a massive amount of processed meat a few times without much ill effect, but years of eating moderate amounts might do you in.
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    I bet there's overlap there with conditions that aren't directly caused by external damage... but by the body's dysregulated reaction to it.
- adastra22 1y ago
  There is absolutely no reason to think that radiation damage should be linear. In fact, we can objectively say that isn’t the case because we KNOW about damage correcting pathways. The linear model, used for public safety limits, is picked as a conservative method because we don’t have a better model (and collecting data to make a better model would be unethical). The “small dose radiation is actually beneficial” part is pure conjecture, and almost certainly wrong. But unrelated to the issue of the validity of the linear model.
hangonhn 1y ago
Wow! I've actually used T-Gel because I used to get dandruff really bad as a teen and it was pretty effective. It's horrifying to know what it really was.
- toast0 1y ago
  It says coal tar right on the bottle. And it smells awful. And it can be pretty effective.
- mmastrac 1y ago
  I used it briefly and then researched it and it seemed like at the time (mid-2000s), nobody could say which of the menagerie of components of the coal tar was actually the effective one. I stopped pretty much at that point.
- jiggawatts 1y ago
  Try using something mild like baby shampoo, use tiny amounts of it, and less frequently. Works a lot better in my experience.
- atombender 1y ago
  It's not true, fortunately. See my reply to the grandparent.
atombender 1y ago
That's not why coal tar works. Coal tar is technically carcinogenic, yes, but no study has found any association with cancer when used topically in low doses [1]. Coal tar's mechanism of action is thought to be carbazole, an aryl hydrocarbon. It is assumed to work through binding to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, a relatively newly discovered immune cell regulator. Tapinarof (Vtama) is a new medication that also works on ArH and is really effective at reducing inflammation. Coal tar was also used together with UVA light and psoralen (a light-sensitizing medication) to treat skin diseases like psoriasis, a protocol called Goeckerman therapy that's no longer commonly practiced. This combination does carry the risk of cancer, but it's probably due to the UVA and not the coal tar. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X15347710 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X1...
BrandoElFollito 1y ago
The age-related risk is an excellent comment. There are illnesses that progress slowly, and the age should always be taken into account when going for a cure. I am in my 50s and wonder from time to time what I would do if certain health-related events strike. For some, I have a well-defined solution (such as suicide for Alzheimer or ALS; or an active cure for cancers that have a fair chance of being fought). The more problematic ones are the ones fatal in long(er) term, with an aggressive and diminishing cure.

el_benhameen 1y ago

There is a theory (theory! very theoretical) that the risk from radiation does not scale linearly and that low doses of radiation might actually be protective. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

CjHuber 1y ago
So we are going full circle now?
- nyc_data_geek 1y ago
  Radiation is good for you now, a little bit, as a treat.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. J. Frank Parnell (from the movie Repo Man).
nsxwolf 1y ago
The residential radon mitigation industry does not like this.
- trhway 1y ago
  radon radiation is primarily alpha. That is never good in any dose. >In this multicenter trial, researchers enrolled 114 patients with moderate-to-mild knee osteoarthritis across three academic centers in Korea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of two radiation regimens — a very low dose (0.3 Gy) or a low dose (3 Gy) This is gamma. Those doses are "low" because delivery here is localized. If given full-body the 3Gy has something like 25-50% mortality. The cancer patient are delivered like 20-80Gy into the tumor and surrounding tissues which just kills cells outright. The point is that "radiation" is multiparametric.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    It's not really the radiation from radon itself which is the problem, but rather radon's daughters. Radon is a noble gas, so it's not going to accumulate in you and doesn't get much chance to do damage to people even if they inhale it; they'll just exhale it moments later before barely any of it can decay. But radon's daughters, the chain of atoms which are produced from the decay of radon and each other, aren't gases, so if stagnant air with radon sticks around it's going to 'rain' an atomic dust of radioactive isotopes which can accumulate and, if disturbed, can be inhaled and stick with people.
- jerlam 1y ago
  On the other hand, the radon health cave industry is overjoyed and vindicated. And people with radon in their basement can start hosting "wellness sessions".
lupusreal 1y ago
It's probably reasonable to say that radiation actually being beneficial is very theoretical, but the linear no-threshold model of harm from radiation is definitely in the theoretical category too. It's used because it's very conservative, but evidence supporting it for low radiation dosages is very weak.
toss1 1y ago
Perhaps the word you are looking for is "conjecture that the risk from radiation ..." ??
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Like sunlight on skin?
prmph 1y ago
There is the alternative observation that sometimes the effect of harmful things is based on the frequency and length of exposure, not so much its magnitude. Compare with the CTE, where a few bone-crushing traumas do not seem to cause it, but chronic long-term low grade impacts is more likely to cause it. Another example, I probably could eat a massive amount of processed meat a few times without much ill effect, but years of eating moderate amounts might do you in.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  I bet there's overlap there with conditions that aren't directly caused by external damage... but by the body's dysregulated reaction to it.
adastra22 1y ago
There is absolutely no reason to think that radiation damage should be linear. In fact, we can objectively say that isn’t the case because we KNOW about damage correcting pathways. The linear model, used for public safety limits, is picked as a conservative method because we don’t have a better model (and collecting data to make a better model would be unethical). The “small dose radiation is actually beneficial” part is pure conjecture, and almost certainly wrong. But unrelated to the issue of the validity of the linear model.

hangonhn 1y ago

Wow! I've actually used T-Gel because I used to get dandruff really bad as a teen and it was pretty effective. It's horrifying to know what it really was.

toast0 1y ago
It says coal tar right on the bottle. And it smells awful. And it can be pretty effective.
mmastrac 1y ago
I used it briefly and then researched it and it seemed like at the time (mid-2000s), nobody could say which of the menagerie of components of the coal tar was actually the effective one. I stopped pretty much at that point.
jiggawatts 1y ago
Try using something mild like baby shampoo, use tiny amounts of it, and less frequently. Works a lot better in my experience.
atombender 1y ago
It's not true, fortunately. See my reply to the grandparent.

atombender 1y ago

That's not why coal tar works. Coal tar is technically carcinogenic, yes, but no study has found any association with cancer when used topically in low doses [1]. Coal tar's mechanism of action is thought to be carbazole, an aryl hydrocarbon. It is assumed to work through binding to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, a relatively newly discovered immune cell regulator. Tapinarof (Vtama) is a new medication that also works on ArH and is really effective at reducing inflammation. Coal tar was also used together with UVA light and psoralen (a light-sensitizing medication) to treat skin diseases like psoriasis, a protocol called Goeckerman therapy that's no longer commonly practiced. This combination does carry the risk of cancer, but it's probably due to the UVA and not the coal tar. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X15347710 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X1...

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

The age-related risk is an excellent comment. There are illnesses that progress slowly, and the age should always be taken into account when going for a cure. I am in my 50s and wonder from time to time what I would do if certain health-related events strike. For some, I have a well-defined solution (such as suicide for Alzheimer or ALS; or an active cure for cancers that have a fair chance of being fought). The more problematic ones are the ones fatal in long(er) term, with an aggressive and diminishing cure.