I am now at Stage 4 Lung Cancer from EMF/Radiation in my home. Lung Cancer & Heart Disease are top killers. The Silent Killer is inside our homes and buildings. How Safe are YOU?

Awareness isn't about fear; it's about time. The sooner we see what's hiding in plain sight, the more lives we can save.

Clips Played How Long Can You Survive With Stage 4 Lung Cancer? - Oncology Support Network - YouTube

Music: The Byrds - Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is A Season) (Audio)

What happens in every stage of lung cancer? | Cancer: Explained | Macmillan Cancer Support - YouTube

Can a CT Scan Kill You? Know The Risks - Life Extension

CT Scan Drawbacks: Important Risks and Side Effects

Only had back pain: How I Learned I had Stage 4 Lung Cancer - Anne | The Patient Story

Doctors Assured Me It Wasn't Cancer! - Shirley | Stage 4 Lung Cancer | The Patient Story - YouTube

A great channel: 3 Steps to Make Sure Your Medical Wishes Are Followed

My Stage 4 Cancer Symptoms Were DISMISSED! - Leah | Stage 4 Lung Cancer | The Patient Story - YouTube

CT Scans and Cancer: What Are the Risks? | Chris Kresser

Can a CT Scan Kill You? Know The Risks - Life Extension

My Stage 4 LUNG CANCER Symptoms: "It all Happened So Fast!" | The Patient Story

Palliative Chemotherapy: What You Need to Know

Why Doesn't Smoking Weed Give You Lung Cancer Like Cigarettes? | by Tierney Finster | MEL Magazine | Medium

Marijuana & Lung Cancer Risk - Mayo Clinic Health System

Cannabis use among recently treated cancer patients: perceptions and experiences | Supportive Care in Cancer

Is Marijuana a Risk Factor or a Treatment Option for Lung Cancer?

Marijuana and Lung Health | American Lung Association

Over 3.8 million lung cancer deaths prevented in the United States due to smoking decline

Big Banks Found a New Way To Trap You In Medical Debt

Marijuana IS Medicine

Bulk Delta 8 THC Distillate

Delta 8 Shake - Fern Valley Farms

$24.99 No Membership Required: The Wayy Big Hoodie Unisex | Costco

Dryer Rack: Mainstays Oversized Collapsible Steel Laundry Drying Rack, 7 Levels, Silver - Walmart.com

Russia-UK and USA Nuclear Power Plants-First Nuclear Power Plant in RUSSIA -UK and USA ALL lied to public. Nuclear Plants create Dirty Electricity over time as bad or worse than Ionizing Radiation. Directly INTO our homes.

Lifetime risk of dementia after age 55 is double previous estimates – White House and Illegal Drug Use by Musk and Trump. Alzheimer and Dirty Electricity. What is the connection? Tests on RATS confirm how we are getting Alzheimer, no HUMAN studies.

The Romanov Gypsy Takeover -Disguised as Kings, Priests and Generals. They Firebombed Nations, Erased Muslims, and Unleashed the Silent War of Dirty Electricity Eugenics to Destroy Our DNA.

The U.S. Army explored using radioactive poisons to assassinate important individuals such as military or civilian leaders, according to newly declassified docs. Approved at the highest levels of the Army in 1948, the effort was a well-hidden secret….

Do you have a psychopath in your life? The best way to find out is read my book. BOOK *FREE* Download – Psychopath In Your Life4

Support is Appreciated: Support the Show – Psychopath In Your Life

Tune in: Podcast Links – Psychopath In Your Life

UPDATED: TOP PODS – Psychopath In Your Life

Google Maps My HOME Address: 309 E. Klug Avenue, Norfolk, NE 68701 SMART Meters & Timelines – Psychopath In Your Life

NEW: My old discussion forum with last 10 years of victim stories, is back online. Psychopath Victim Support Community | Forums powered by UBB.threads™

Experts Historically Underestimated Radiation Risks

When radiation was first discovered, doctors were wildly enthusiastic about being able to peer inside the body of a living human.

Sadly, radiation killed its early pioneers, who had no idea of its dangers.

Even as knowledge of radiation's lethal properties became apparent, experts consistently underestimated the risks.

One tragic example was an individual named Clarence Dally who intentionally exposed himself multiple times to ionizing radiation from Thomas Edison's "fluoroscope" invention. Within a few months, Dally began suffering debilitating fatigue, body aches, and multiple burn-like lesions on his hands. These lesions turned out to be cancer that rapidly spread throughout his body. Dally lost both his arms to these malignant lesions, and died a painful death in 1904. Thomas Edison was said to be haunted for the rest of his life by Dally's cancer and death, and refused to have anything more to do with ionizing radiation.24

In the 1950s, our federal government routinely conducted above-ground testing of nuclear bombs in the Nevada desert and claimed the radioactive fallout that spread throughout much of the United States was "harmless." In 2002, the federal government admitted that the radiation emitted from these nuclear weapons tests caused 15,000 American cancer deaths.25 Critics claim this number grossly understates the actual number of cancer

"…there is little evidence to support the use of dental X-rays ' in search of occult pathoses in the asymptomatic patient' or 'routine dental radiographs at preset intervals for all patients. Although dental X-rays are an important tool in well-selected patients, efforts to moderate exposure to ionizing radiation to the head is likely to be of benefit to patients and health care providers alike.'"

John Gofman, MD, PhD, was a medical doctor, nuclear chemist, Manhattan Project scientist, co-discoverer of isotopes of uranium and protactinium, the first to separate plutonium in usable quantities, and an early member of the Life Extension Foundation.

Dr. Gofman fought to end policies that allow plutonium and other radioactivity from the nuclear power/weapons fuel chain to be dispersed into the environment. He repeatedly stood up to government pressure to suppress the truth about radiation health dangers.

Dr. Gofman's accomplishments extend to his groundbreaking research in cardiac medicine, which includes the identification and distinguishing of HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol. The Journal of Clinical Lipidology named him the "Father of Clinical Lipidology," honoring him for discoveries he made decades ago, which are now part of conventional cardiology.43

His tireless work to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical procedures is finally taking hold with Consumer Reports disseminating data that emanated from work that Dr. Gofman initiated many decades ago.

Dr. Gofman firmly believed there is no safe threshold of ionizing radiation one should needlessly be exposed to. He used a linear no-threshold model of radiation risk and argued that far more cases of cancer and other diseases are caused by unnecessary exposure to medical radiation than what the "authorities" admit.44,45

Not everyone agrees with Dr. Gofman's "linear model of radiation risk" and a debate continues as to whether there is a low level of X-ray exposure that can be accepted as "safe."

Radiation Dose Comparison

Different types of medical diagnostic imaging tests pose varying degrees of risk from ionizing radiation exposure.

A brief list of different medical diagnostic imaging tests that utilize ionizing radiation are provided to better identify scans that generate relatively high exposure in comparison to natural background radiation exposure.

Diagnostic Procedure Typical Effective Dose (mSv)46 Number Of Chest X-rays (PA film) For Equivalent Effective Dose47 Time Period For Equivalent Effective Dose From Natural Background Radiation48 Chest X-ray (PA Film) 0.02 1 2.4 days Skull X-ray 0.1 5 12 days Lumbar Spine 1.5 75 182 days Intravenous (IV) Pyelogram 3 150 1.0 year Upper GI Exam (Barium Swallow) 6 300 2.0 years Lower GI Exam (Barium Enema) 8 400 2.7 years CT Head 2 100 243 days CT Abdomen 8 400 2.7 years

References

CT = Ionizing Radiation

• A CT scan uses X-rays, which are ionizing radiation.

• The dose is much higher than a plain chest X-ray:

  • Chest X-ray: about 0.1 mSv (millisievert)

  • Chest CT: about 5–7 mSv

  • Abdomen & pelvis CT: 8–10 mSv

  • A whole-body trauma CT can be 20 mSv or more

For comparison: natural background radiation in the U.S. is about 3 mSv per year.

2. Informed Consent in Practice

Emergency settings:

• If the patient is conscious and able, the staff usually give a brief explanation: "We're going to do a CT scan to check for bleeding / clots / injuries. It uses X-rays."

• In life-threatening situations (e.g., stroke, major trauma, internal bleeding), the scan is done under implied consent because the benefit of a rapid diagnosis outweighs the small long-term radiation risk.

Outpatient or non-urgent settings:

• Patients often sign a general imaging consent that covers CT, X-ray, and similar tests.

• Some facilities give a printed information sheet mentioning that CT involves ionizing radiation and noting why it's being ordered.

• Usually there is not an extensive discussion of the exact dose, unless the patient asks or is part of a higher-risk group (for example, a child or a pregnant woman).

3. Communication Gaps

Studies show that many patients:

• Do not realize that CT uses radiation.

• Tend to underestimate the dose compared with a plain X-ray.

• Are often focused on the immediate health problem rather than the long-term risk.

Clinicians and radiology societies have been trying to improve this by:

• Adding plain-language information to consent forms

• Posting notices in waiting rooms ("CT uses X-rays")

• Training staff to mention radiation risk in routine explanations

4. Risk–Benefit Perspective

• The long-term cancer risk from a single diagnostic CT is very small — on the order of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000 depending on age, body part, and dose.

• The immediate benefit — finding a bleed, a clot, a ruptured organ, or a hidden lung mass — is usually far greater than the theoretical risk.

• The highest concern is for children and young adults, who are more sensitive to radiation and have more years ahead for a radiation-induced cancer to develop.

5. Patients' Rights

• You have the right to ask:

  • Why the CT is needed

  • Whether an ultrasound or MRI could give the same answer without radiation

  • How the dose will be kept as low as possible ("ALARA" principle — As Low As Reasonably Achievable)

• You can also ask the facility to keep a record of your imaging history so you don't get unnecessary repeat scans.

✅ Bottom Line

• CT scans in emergencies are often performed very quickly, sometimes without a detailed radiation discussion, because speed can save a life.

• In non-emergent cases, patients usually sign a general consent but may not be told the dose unless they ask.

• The radiation risk is real but small; the decision to scan is a risk–benefit calculation, generally in favor of scanning when serious disease is suspected.

General Rule

• CT scans are avoided during pregnancy whenever possible.

• Ultrasound and MRI are preferred because they do not use ionizing radiation.

• CT is only used if the information is urgently needed and cannot be obtained by a safer method.

2. When CT May Be Necessary

Situations where CT is sometimes chosen even in pregnancy include:

• Life-threatening emergencies for the mother:

  • Suspected pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs)

  • Severe trauma (e.g., after a car accident)

  • Suspected internal bleeding in the chest or abdomen

  • Stroke, brain bleeding

• If the mother's life is at risk, doctors will prioritize her diagnosis and treatment, as this also benefits the fetus.

3. Fetal Radiation Exposure

Radiation risk depends on:

• Stage of pregnancy: The first trimester (especially weeks 2–15) is most sensitive.

• Body area scanned:

  • Head or chest CT: The fetus is not in the primary beam; the dose to the fetus is very low (often

  • Abdominal or pelvic CT: The fetus is in the beam; typical dose is 10–25 mGy.

For context: – Risk of birth defects rises noticeably above about 100 mGy. – A single CT of the abdomen or pelvis is well below that threshold, but is associated with a small increase in lifetime cancer risk for the child.

4. Risk Estimates

• The baseline risk of a child developing cancer is about 1 in 500.

• A fetal exposure of 10–20 mGy (typical for one abdominal CT) may increase that risk by about 1 in 1,000–2,000.

• There is no evidence of birth defects from typical diagnostic CT doses.

• The main concern is the small increase in lifetime cancer risk.

5. Risk–Benefit Approach

• Doctors weigh the immediate danger to the mother against the small, delayed risk to the fetus.

• Stabilizing or saving the mother's life is the best protection for the fetus.

• Modern CT scanners use dose-reduction protocols for pregnant patients:

  • Limiting scan area

  • Lowering exposure settings

  • Using shielding when it does not interfere with imaging

6. Patient Communication

• Patients should be told that CT uses X-rays and that every effort is made to minimize fetal exposure.

• If the scan is of the head or chest, patients can be reassured the radiation to the fetus is negligible.

• If the scan is of the abdomen/pelvis, the decision should involve:

  • The treating physician

  • A radiologist

  • Sometimes a maternal–fetal medicine specialist

✅ Key Takeaways

• Ultrasound and MRI are first choice for imaging in pregnancy.

• CT is only used when truly needed and with precautions to reduce dose.

• For most CT exams not involving the belly/pelvis, fetal radiation exposure is extremely low.

• Even when the pelvis is scanned, the absolute risk increase is small, and the mother's health remains the top priority.

Maternal Mortality in the U.S.

• According to the CDC:

  • In 2021, the U.S. maternal-mortality rate was about 33 deaths per 100,000 live births.

  • This is 2–3 times higher than in Canada, the U.K., or most of western Europe.

• The risk is much higher for Black women — in some years 2–3 times the rate of white women.

• Many deaths occur after delivery, often from:

  • Hemorrhage

  • Hypertensive disorders (like pre-eclampsia/eclampsia)

  • Infections

  • Cardiovascular disease

2. International Comparison

• Countries such as Norway, Germany, Japan, Australia report fewer than 10 deaths per 100,000 live births.

• Some lower-income nations have improved dramatically through:

  • More accessible prenatal care

  • Skilled birth attendants

  • Rapid emergency response for complications

• The U.S. rate is therefore high not because modern care isn't available, but because it's not equally accessible or consistently delivered.

3. Main Causes of the U.S. Gap

• Access and inequality:

  • Many women, especially in rural areas or without insurance, have limited access to prenatal care.

• Chronic health conditions:

  • Higher rates of obesity, diabetes, hypertension.

• Fragmented health-care system:

  • Gaps in coordination between prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care.

• Systemic racism and implicit bias:

  • Documented in research as contributing to delays in recognition and response to complications in Black women.

• Under-prioritizing postpartum care:

  • A large share of deaths occur in the weeks to months after birth, when follow-up may be inadequate.

4. In the Context of Imaging Decisions

• In an acute emergency (e.g., suspected pulmonary embolism or internal bleeding), physicians generally do prioritize saving the mother's life first, because the fetus cannot survive if the mother dies.

• The concern you raise reflects a broader systemic problem: many women in the U.S. do not get timely preventive or emergency care in the first place.

✅ Key Points

• The U.S. has advanced medical technology, but maternal health outcomes lag behind many peer nations because of access, inequality, and system failures, not because clinicians deliberately disregard mothers' lives.

• In emergencies requiring CT scans or other interventions, the ethical standard is to prioritize maternal survival, which in turn is usually the best chance for the baby.

• Improving maternal survival overall depends on:

  • Early and continuous prenatal care

  • Rapid recognition of complications

  • Equitable access to quality care before, during, and after delivery

Information and Support Gaps

• Historically stigmatized: for decades lung cancer was thought of as a "smoker's disease." Many cancer centers built their educational materials and support programs first for breast, prostate, colon and childhood cancers.

• Result: people who never smoked often find no brochures, few support groups, and a focus on smoking cessation rather than on the needs of those already diagnosed.

• Patient impact: many describe feeling as if they had to learn a new medical vocabulary, navigate insurance and treatment options alone, and explain repeatedly that they never smoked.

2. Access and Cost

• Targeted therapy pills (like EGFR or ALK inhibitors) can cost tens of thousands of dollars per month in the U.S. without insurance or assistance.

• Even in countries with public health care (like Canada), patients sometimes face delays in confirming coverage or accessing newer targeted drugs.

• Many people start chemotherapy first simply because it is more immediately accessible, then transition to targeted pills when coverage or drug supply is arranged.

3. Treatment Course and Progression

The experience you quoted reflects a fairly typical modern pattern for EGFR- or ALK-positive lung cancer:

1. Initial chemotherapy (if pill not yet available or coverage uncertain)

2. First targeted pill → good response, often for 1–2 years

3. Progression → switch to a newer targeted pill

4. Repeat until there is no longer an effective targeted option

5. Sometimes radiation or clinical trials added for local progression

Patients often describe:

• Rapid symptom relief (cough, breathlessness) within days or weeks after starting an effective pill

• Cycles of hope and setback each time a drug eventually stops working

• Regular imaging (CT every 3–4 months, sometimes PET or brain MRI) to monitor for progression

4. Hidden Nature of Disease

• Lung cancer, especially adenocarcinoma, can progress without obvious new symptoms. Routine scans often detect changes before the patient feels them.

• This fuels the sense that it is a "sneaky" disease and underscores why routine surveillance is standard once a diagnosis is made.

5. Emotional and Social Dimensions

• Patients often report that the most difficult period is at diagnosis — telling children and family, learning new terminology, trying to understand treatment choices.

• Peer support (in person or online) and well-informed friends or neighbors often become essential for:

  • child care

  • transportation to appointments

  • cooking and daily household tasks

• Where a cancer center lacks disease-specific materials or navigators, patients may feel as if they're "on their own."

6. Public-Health and Communication Lessons

• The scarcity of lung-cancer-specific support and educational materials is being recognized as a barrier to care.

• Modern advocacy groups (e.g., GO2 for Lung Cancer in the U.S., Lung Cancer Canada) now push for:

  • better patient navigation services

  • financial-access programs for targeted therapies

  • updated educational resources that reflect the needs of never-smokers and the role of targeted drugs

• These efforts are gradually reducing the informational void that patients like the one you quoted have faced.

Key Takeaways

• The confusion and sense of abandonment you noted are unfortunately common among lung-cancer patients, especially never-smokers.

• Lack of early detection programs and of visible, disease-specific support resources has contributed to late diagnoses and unnecessary suffering.

• Treatment advances (targeted therapies, immunotherapy, palliative radiation) now mean that timely diagnosis and good care coordination can prolong life for years, but navigating the system remains a major challenge.

Especially worrisome is the fact that some physicians have a financial investment in the very medical diagnostic imaging centers to which patients are referred.

Consumer Reports magazine now urges patients to ask if their doctor has a financial interest in a diagnostic imaging center. It should not come as a surprise that when physicians invest in a CT scanner or other radiology equipment, they then have a financial incentive to refer more of their patients for CT scans and other imaging tests.

Consumer Reports urges all patients to question their doctor when a CT scan or X-ray is ordered, as some problems can be managed without powerful doses of radiation.8

Widespread Ignorance Of The Dangers

Consumer Reports conducted a survey and found that only 4% of patients prescribed a CT scan had the knowledge to say "no" to their doctor.1 This prompted one enlightened doctor to state that patients need to take the lead in questioning whether a CT scan or X-ray is necessary.

A 2012 study was done of medical personnel who worked with patients undergoing abdominal CT scans (which often emit the most radiation). This study found that less than 50% understood that these scans could cause cancer.9

Another study revealed only 9% of emergency room physicians said they knew that CT scans increased cancer risk.10

This widespread ignorance amongst professionals on the front lines of medical care is alarming.

Until doctors get up to speed on the risks posted by radiation-emitting imaging devices, patients need to assert control and not capitulate to the exaggerated fears doctors instill to persuade patients to undergo unnecessary CT scans, X-rays, or other diagnostic imaging procedures involving ionizing radiation.

Defending Against Lawsuits

A study presented at the 2011 meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons provided clear evidence of why CT scans and other medical diagnostic imaging tests are being so over utilized.

It turns out that 35% of imaging tests are being done by doctors out of fear of lawsuits.1,11-13 In other words, if sued by a patient (and zealous personal injury attorney) for malpractice, doctors need hard evidence showing the patient was aggressively diagnosed, as well as treated.

What Radon Is

• Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced by the decay of uranium in soil and rock.

• It seeps into houses through basements, crawl spaces, cracks, and sump pits.

• Outdoors it is diluted and harmless; the risk comes from sustained indoor exposure over years.

2. Action Level

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets an "action level" of 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) of air. Long-term exposure above this level is associated with a higher lifetime risk of lung cancer.

• The World Health Organization recommends a slightly lower reference level: 2.7 pCi/L (100 Bq/m³).

3. Prevalence in U.S. Homes

• Nationwide average: about 1.3 pCi/L.

• EPA surveys:

  • Roughly 1 in 15 U.S. homes (~7%) test above the EPA action level of 4 pCi/L.

  • Higher rates occur in some regions:

    • Upper Midwest and Northern Plains (Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, parts of Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania): 30–40% or more of homes may test above 4 pCi/L.

    • Coastal regions and much of the Southeast: Usually

• Newer well-sealed, energy-efficient homes can sometimes have higher radon levels because they trap soil gases indoors.

4. Global Variation

• Areas with uranium-rich bedrock (parts of Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, China) also have higher radon in homes.

• In many countries, 5–10% of homes exceed the national action level.

5. How Radon Risk Compares

• The absolute risk is still small on an individual level but important on a population level:

  • EPA estimates that radon exposure contributes to about 21,000 lung-cancer deaths per year in the U.S.

  • The risk is much higher in smokers, but even for never-smokers, long-term high exposure increases lifetime risk.

6. Practical Takeaway

• Radon is not rare, but it is not ubiquitous either:

  • In most U.S. regions only a minority of homes (about 7%) exceed the action level.

  • In certain high-radon regions, testing is strongly recommended for every home.

• Testing is inexpensive and simple (home test kits or professional testers). If a problem is found, mitigation (ventilation or sub-slab depressurization) usually lowers levels below 2 pCi/L.

Bottom line: Radon is common enough that public-health agencies recommend testing every home at least once, especially in high-radon states, but the majority of U.S. homes are below the action level.

Palliative Chemotherapy – Communication, Practice, and Costs 1. Historical Context

• Chemotherapy in the 20th century: Originally developed as a curative tool for certain cancers (leukemia, lymphoma, germ-cell tumors).

• Shift in solid tumors: For metastatic solid tumors such as lung and colorectal cancer, most regimens have palliative intent because cure is rarely possible once the disease has spread.

• Integration with palliative care: Over the last two decades, randomized trials (notably Temel et al., 2010 in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer) showed that early palliative-care involvement improves quality of life and sometimes modestly prolongs survival.

• Guideline development: ASCO, ESMO, and NCCN have formalized recommendations to limit aggressive therapy near the end of life and to prioritize comfort and shared decision-making.

2. Definition and Purpose of Palliative Chemotherapy

• Goal: Not to cure, but to:

  • slow disease progression,

  • reduce symptoms such as pain, cough, dyspnea,

  • sometimes extend life by weeks to months.

• Typical use: Stage IV or otherwise inoperable cancer.

• Contrast with Curative Chemotherapy:

  • Curative regimens aim to eradicate disease (e.g., early-stage lymphomas, germ-cell tumors).

  • Palliative regimens accept ongoing disease and prioritize comfort and modest life prolongation.

3. Communication Standards and Expectations

• Informed Consent: International guidelines require that clinicians explain:

  • The goal of treatment (control vs. cure),

  • The expected benefits and risks,

  • The prognosis with and without therapy.

• Palliative-Care Team Role: Often brought in early to reinforce communication, manage symptoms, and support decision-making.

• Legal/Ethical Foundation: Respect for patient autonomy requires truthful, comprehensible disclosure.

4. Communication Barriers and Patient Misunderstanding

Language

• "Palliative" derives from Latin palliare ("to cloak, to ease") – not widely understood as meaning non-curative.

• Patients often interpret "chemotherapy" as inherently curative, reinforced by cultural depictions.

Hope vs. Acceptance

• Patients may equate continuing therapy with "not giving up."

• Clinicians sometimes soften or delay explicit statements about incurability to preserve morale.

Cultural and Family Influences

• In some cultures, families request that prognosis not be disclosed directly to the patient.

Health Literacy and Timing

• Complex terms (progression-free survival, response rate) can obscure intent.

• Initial treatment discussions often occur during periods of emotional distress, reducing information retention.

5. Evidence on Patient Awareness

• NEJM (Weeks et al., 2012):

  • 1,193 patients with newly diagnosed stage IV lung or colorectal cancer.

  • 69% of lung-canc