I sit here scribing this editorial on the first Saturday
after Pakistan unleashed its nuclear weaponry and wonder in some amazement
at the "business-as-usual" mentality afoot in Seattle. In
1962 before the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the threat of annihilation
by nuclear attack was poignant in the US and Russia. Nuclear bomb shelters
were a faddish cottage industry in the US and some neighbors actually
had plans for installing them. The last several decades brought more
countries into the club of nuclear weapon holders, but the dismantling
of the Berlin Wall seemed to bring an olive leaf among the parties threatening
the world with "the bomb." So for nearly 6 years the world
has experienced relative peace (with the exception of Rwanda, Kuwait
and others). What a rude awakening May has brought us with New Delhi
and now Islamabab each detonating 5 nuclear bombs and now with Pakistan
threatening to arm their missiles with similar weapons. Are we at the
precipice of nuclear war? Diplomacy failed to stop Pakistan from seeking
revenge for India's surprise nuclear testing. Two decades of US sanctioning
in the Asian subcontinent has done little to change decision-making
by the Muslim Pakistanis and the Hindu Indians. Other nations have fared
little better. Russia was utterly incompetent in controlling activity
by Afghanistan. Neighboring Iran threatens to develop a nuclear arsenal;
Iraq will merely settle to develop biological weaponry for the world,
perhaps in exchange for their own nuclear devices. China has long had
its own nuclear stockpile. Meanwhile the US continues to nursemaid its
collection of 2,000+ weapons and the Soviets have a similar arsenal.
Do we seriously believe that there will not be some incident in the
near future? The question is not if there will be another Hiroshima,
the question is when and what should be done? Clinton and the State
Department should be asked how will we respond to a nuclear war by these
third world nations with nuclear devices. As Pogo the cartoon character
has quipped, "We have met the enemy and it is us!"
From the physician point of view, treating the victims
of a nuclear attack is the pressing issue. What strategies must be employed
not just for the emergency but for the long-term care? Given the inevitability
of such an exposure, are there any preventive courses of action? Finally
but not necessarily lastly, what are the alternative medicine strategies
not being considered by the civic authorities? This editorial will not
attempt to define the conventional emergency procedures except to say
that medical care will be delivered on a triaged basis with standard
emergency procedures employed for highest priority emergencies first.
Unfortunately radiation exposure is well concentrated by solid organ
tissue and is not easily removed by ordinary detoxification or poison
control methods. Extremely high dose radiation will probably be triaged
to "untreatable" wards and "left to die." Moderate
radiation exposure will probably be given first priority and it would
be curious to see how civic authorities determine the criteria separating
these two categories. Nevertheless, moderate radiation exposure will
be very limited in survivability: such victims will probably sustain
one or more major system breakdowns with radiation poisoning within
10 days to one month. The highest potential of survival will lie in
the low radiation exposure category. These individuals will only have
the chance for long-term survival if they undergo conventional and unconventional
approaches to radiation detoxification. Of course, the unconventional
alternative approaches will remain, as always, outside the mainstream
treatment facilities and limited to those individuals who seek such
care on their own initiative.
Within the alternative medicine arsenal (perhaps a poor
choice of words) and within easy access to everyone are Vitamin C, E,
A, calcium-magnesium, digestive pancreatic enzymes, silymarum (milk
thistle), B vitamins, selenium, Vitamin B12 and folic acid, bioflavonoids,
mushrooms, garlic, Pacific sea kelp and pure water. All of these nutrients,
nutritional supplements, foods and water represent first step detoxification
measures helpful in reduction of radiation burden. Silymarum should
be greatly emphasized for its protective role for the liver. Vitamin
C, selenium, garlic and water represent minimal supports for the kidneys
which will face double-trouble first from direct radiation exposure
and secondarily from diuresis of radiation-concentrated fluids. Kelp
will be obligatory to support the thyroid which will concentrate radioactive
iodide contamination. What sort of doses should be prescribed? Time
will be of the essence and erring on the side of too much will probably
be safer than giving too little. For once we should listen to Linus
Pauling and treat with high doses of Vitamin C, 10,000 mg plus daily.
The vitamin C should be buffered if possible with minerals and should
also be complemented with high doses of Calcium-Magnesium to prevent
undue chelation of these minerals from the body: 2,000 mg of Calcium
to 1,000 mg of magnesium. In addition very high doses of Vitamin C tend
to make people subject to more herpes outbreak and a high dose of lysine
2,000 mg daily should be employed. High doses of the other nutrients
are probably indicated: Vitamin E, 1200 Units; Vitamin A 25,000 IU+;
digestive enzymes, 2-4 per meal; silymarum 3-6 capsules daily; B-Vitamins,
50-100 mg; selenium 200-600 mcg; Vitamin B12 2,000 mcg; folic acid,
5 mg; bioflavonoids, 3,000 mg; garlic, mushrooms and kelp at each meal.
Water intake should definitely be higher than usual, 8 glasses daily.
Many other nutritional supplements should be considered in these programs
and employed. This will be a race against time and we will be dealing
with radioactive particles having timeless half-lives.
Chelation is definitely appropriate in these situations.
EDTA chelation has been utilized in various medical emergencies in the
past with nuclear workers exposed to radiation materials. Intravenous
EDTA chelation, intravenous ascorbic acid and i.v. minerals should be
administered if possible as early as possible after radiation exposure.
Intravenous ascorbic acid assumes heroic proportions using 25-50 grams
of Vitamin C per treatment. It is obligatory to buffer the Vitamin C
with calcium gluconate or the individual will experience tetany from
excess calcium loss. EDTA also should be employed with magnesium and
other trace minerals. The safety record and relative low cost of EDTA
make it a preferred treatment method, Other agents will probably deserve
consideration. Many homeopathic preparations are now available for intravenous
use and will also offer alternative means for detoxification.
Prevention will not neutralize radiation exposure. But
individuals who have already employed vitamins and minerals and other
nutritionals specified earlier will have a better chance of lessening
the impact of radiation on their system. This may be the best argument
yet why nutritional supplements deserve routine use regardless of the
individual's state of health. The major concern for individuals having
limited radiation exposure will be the long-term risk for malignancy.
Those individuals having higher anti-oxidant status will probably face
lesser risk than those individuals with minimal vitamin usage.
The recent turn of events has created an uncomfortable
environment with various parties holding weapons of mass destruction.
The provincial self-serving character of these parties threatens the
ultimate deployment of nuclear weapons with massive public exposure
to radiation and radioactive elements. Protocols are needed now to offset
the degree of damage from exposure and to offer complementary and alternative
approaches for those individuals sustaining radiation exposure. The
Townsend Letter welcomes additional discussion on this topic from the
readership.
Jonathan Collin, MD