Why use gamma over alpha radiation? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How to calculate gamma radiation shielding?Background gamma radiationHow does radiation degrade mechanical parts and electronic devices?Why did scientists use a zinc-sulfide coated screen to detect the alpha, beta, and gamma radiation?Why is there only alpha and beta (and gamma) decay?Radiation and cancerRadiation distribution in subcritical core after meltdown?Why is radiometric dating only considered a use of alpha and beta radiation?Is my tritium keychain emitting significant amounts of radiation?How would a fast-moving atom interact with a body?

I'm having difficulty getting my players to do stuff in a sandbox campaign

Estimate capacitor parameters

Array/tabular for long multiplication

What's the difference between (size_t)-1 and ~0?

How do I automatically answer y in bash script?

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

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

Autumning in love

Aligning matrix of nodes with grid

Classification of bundles, Postnikov towers, obstruction theory, local coefficients

I'm thinking of a number

How to select 3,000 out of 10,000 files in file manager?

Two different pronunciation of "понял"

Stars Make Stars

How does modal jazz use chord progressions?

Cold is to Refrigerator as warm is to?

How to add zeros to reach same number of decimal places in tables?

What to do with post with dry rot?

When communicating altitude with a '9' in it, should it be pronounced "nine hundred" or "niner hundred"?

Single author papers against my advisor's will?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

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

What is the largest species of polychaete?

Can smartphones with the same camera sensor have different image quality?



Why use gamma over alpha radiation?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How to calculate gamma radiation shielding?Background gamma radiationHow does radiation degrade mechanical parts and electronic devices?Why did scientists use a zinc-sulfide coated screen to detect the alpha, beta, and gamma radiation?Why is there only alpha and beta (and gamma) decay?Radiation and cancerRadiation distribution in subcritical core after meltdown?Why is radiometric dating only considered a use of alpha and beta radiation?Is my tritium keychain emitting significant amounts of radiation?How would a fast-moving atom interact with a body?










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?










share|cite|improve this question







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















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?










share|cite|improve this question







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













1












1








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?










share|cite|improve this question







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






share|cite|improve this question







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







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




share|cite|improve this question






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




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
    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




    $begingroup$
    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















$begingroup$
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
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










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









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    a tumour on the skin?
    $endgroup$
    – Ubaid Hassan
    1 hour 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
    56 mins ago


















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









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
    50 mins ago











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


















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









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









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    a tumour on the skin?
    $endgroup$
    – Ubaid Hassan
    1 hour 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
    56 mins ago















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









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    a tumour on the skin?
    $endgroup$
    – Ubaid Hassan
    1 hour 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
    56 mins ago













2












2








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









$endgroup$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










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
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    a tumour on the skin?
    $endgroup$
    – Ubaid Hassan
    1 hour 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
    56 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
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @UbaidHassan What's an "external tumour"?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    a tumour on the skin?
    $endgroup$
    – Ubaid Hassan
    1 hour 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
    56 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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago












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




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












$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
a tumour on the skin?
$endgroup$
– Ubaid Hassan
1 hour 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
56 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
56 mins ago











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









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
    50 mins ago















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









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
    50 mins ago













1












1








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









$endgroup$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










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
    1 hour ago











  • $begingroup$
    @dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    50 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
    1 hour ago











  • $begingroup$
    @dmckee It sound like you should just type out an answer :)
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    50 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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago













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




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










Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

格濟夫卡 參考資料 导航菜单51°3′40″N 34°2′21″E / 51.06111°N 34.03917°E / 51.06111; 34.03917ГезівкаПогода в селі 编辑或修订