THE VEGETARIAN DIET FOR KIDNEY DISEASE TREATMENT By Joan Brookhyser, RD, CSR, CD
Many dietitians and consumers have questions about the use of vegetarian diets in kidney disease. Joan Brookhyser has the credentials to address these questions. She has worked as a clinical dietitian for more than 25 years and is a Board Certified Renal Nutrition Specialist. Joan has used her experience and knowledge to create a book that explains how vegetarian diets can be used to treat kidney disease. When she began her career, she says, vegetarians who developed kidney disease were ...
Friday, March 6, 2009
Patient information: Kidney stones in children
INTRODUCTION — Kidney stones (also called nephrolithiasis or urolithiasis) develop when a collection of minerals or other material form a small "stone" in the kidney, ureter, or bladder. The stone can cause pain, block the flow of urine, and cause long-term kidney problems if it is not recognized and treated promptly. Fortunately, most children who develop kidney stones recover without any long-term complications.
Stones are less common in children than in adults, although the number of children who develop stones is unclear. Most children who develop kidney stones have an underlying condition that increases their risk of stones, although some children develop a stone for unknown reasons.
This topic review discusses how and why kidney stones develop, and the symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and ways to prevent a recurrence of kidney stones. A topic review that discusses kidney stones in adults is available separately. (See "Patient information: Kidney stones in adults").
HOW KIDNEY STONES DEVELOP — A brief overview of the anatomy of the urinary tract will help to explain how kidney stones develop. The urinary tract is composed of two kidneys and ureters, a bladder, and a urethra (show figure 1). Urine is produced by the kidneys, which are located towards the middle of the back, below the ribs.
The kidneys remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood and convert this to urine. The urine passes out of the kidney through small tubules into the hollow portion of the kidney (renal pelvis) and then into the ureter, a narrow tube connecting the kidney to the bladder (show figure 2). The urine collects in the bladder until it passes out of the body through the urethra.
A kidney stone usually forms when substances that are normally found in the urine, such as calcium, oxalate, cystine, or uric acid, are at high levels. However, in some children, stones can also form if these substances are at normal levels. Knowing the stone composition is important as this information may guide therapy (see "Stone testing" below).
The substances form crystals, which become anchored in the kidney and gradually increase in size, forming a kidney stone. Stones that are less than 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) are usually passed without intervention while larger stones usually require treatment.
A kidney stone moves through the urinary tract and, if it is small enough, it will be expelled in the urine. A larger stone may become lodged within the urinary tract, causing pain and sometimes blocking the flow of urine. Occasionally, a stone may not pass into the ureters and can enlarge to fill the entire renal pelvis, which can damage the kidney if it produces infection or obstruction.
SYMPTOMS — The most common symptoms of kidney stones include abdominal or back pain, blood in the urine (hematuria), nausea or vomiting, and the urgent need to urinate. However, some children, particularly young children, do not have any symptoms and the kidney stone is found when an imaging test (eg, x-ray) is done for another reason.
Pain — Pain is the most common symptom of a kidney stone. Pain can range from a mild and barely noticeable ache to intense discomfort. The likelihood that the child will feel pain depends somewhat upon the child's age; adolescents are more likely to have pain than young children.
Typically, the pain waxes and wanes in severity. Waves of severe pain, known as renal colic, can last 20 to 60 minutes, although less severe pain can occur between episodes of renal colic.
The area that is painful depends upon the location of the stone, which may change as the stone moves. The most common areas of pain include the flank (one side of the lower back, show figure 3) and the abdomen. Younger children may not be able to say exactly where they feel pain.
Hematuria — Hematuria (blood in the urine) occurs in 30 to 50 percent of children with kidney stones. The urine may appear pink or red-colored, or the blood may be visible only when the urine is analyzed in a laboratory.
Other symptoms — Other common symptoms include nausea or vomiting, pain with urination, and an urgent need to urinate. Pain with urination and an urgent need to urinate can also occur when a child has a urinary tract infection. An evaluation is needed to distinguish between a urinary tract infection and a kidney stone. However, urinary tract infections are often seen in children with kidney stones. (See "Patient information: Urinary tract infections in children").
RISK FACTORS — Certain factors can increase a child's risk of developing kidney stones.
* History of kidney stones — Children who have had a kidney stone in the past have the highest risk of developing a stone in the future. Children who have one episode of kidney stones are usually advised to follow preventive measures to decrease the risk of developing a stone in the future. (See "Prevention" below).
* Low fluid intake — The amount of fluids a child drinks directly affects the amount of urine that is made. Drinking a small amount of fluids means that less urine is made, which increases the concentration of stone-forming substances in the urine. Increasing fluid intake can reduce the risk of recurrent stones. (See "Increase fluid intake" below).
* Diet high in animal protein — Children who eat a diet with high levels of animal protein (eg, beef, pork, lamb, chicken) may have an increased risk of developing calcium oxalate stones, especially if the child has difficulties with intestinal absorption. However, normal amounts of protein are essential for growth and do not increase the risk of forming kidney stones.
* Ketogenic diet — Diets that include a very small amount of carbohydrates, called ketogenic diets, can increase the risk of kidney stones. Ketogenic diets are sometimes used to treat seizure disorders. (See "Patient information: Treatment of seizures in children").
* Cystic fibrosis — Children with cystic fibrosis are at higher risk of developing kidney stones.
* Urinary tract abnormalities — Anatomic abnormalities of the kidneys or ureters, or difficulties with bladder emptying, increase the risk of developing a kidney stone.
* Medications — Some medications promote formation of urine crystals. These include furosemide, acetazolamide, and allopurinol.
* Inherited disorders — Several uncommon inherited disorders can increase a child's risk of developing kidney stones. Testing for these disorders may be recommended in some cases.
DIAGNOSIS
Urine tests — Two urine tests are recommended for children who are suspected of having a kidney stone. This includes a urine culture, to determine if the child has a urinary tract infection, and a urinalysis, which can determine if microscopic crystals are present in the urine . (See "Patient information: Urinary tract infections in children").
Imaging tests — To confirm the presence of a kidney stone, an imaging test such as a CT scan, ultrasound, or x-ray, is necessary. The imaging test can also help to determine if there are abnormalities of the urinary tract, which would increase the risk for future stones. Computed tomography (CT scan) is the preferred test in most cases.
Computed tomography (CT) scan — A CT scan creates a three dimensional image of structures within the body. A particular type of CT scan (called noncontrast helical CT) can identify almost all types kidney stones (including those that are not seen with the other imaging tests), and can determine if there the stone is blocking (obstructing) the urinary tract (show radiograph 1).
There is some concern about exposing a child to excessive amounts of radiation, especially if the CT scanner uses an adult dose of radiation. In many cases, the amount of radiation can be reduced, based upon the child's size and weight. If this is not possible, another imaging test, such as ultrasound, may be recommended.
Ultrasonography — Ultrasonography (the use of sound waves to visualize body structures) can also be used to detect stones, although small stones and stones in the ureters may be missed. However, ultrasound is the procedure of choice for children who should avoid radiation, such as in pregnant girls or if the dose of radiation in a CT scanner cannot be adjusted for small children.
Abdominal x-ray — Many types of kidney stones can be seen on standard abdominal x-ray (called KUB, kidneys, ureter, bladder). However, certain stones, such as uric acid stones and small stones, may not be seen. As a result, another test, such as a CT scan, may be required if a kidney stone is likely but the abdominal x-ray is negative.
TREATMENT
Treatment at home — If the stone is small, pain is manageable, and the child is otherwise healthy, treatment may be provided at home. Stones smaller than 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) often pass on their own without requiring a procedure, even in young children.
Pain is usually managed with a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug such as ibuprofen (Advil®, Motrin®). In addition, the child is encouraged to drink an increased amount of fluids to help flush the stone out of the kidney, ureter, or bladder. (See "Increase fluid intake" below).
The parent/child will be asked to strain the child's urine for a few days, until the stone passes. Urine strainers are available from most hospital supply stores, and are placed under the toilet seat. If a urinary strainer cannot be obtained, a receptacle covered by cheese cloth or a fine mesh sheet can be used.
If a stone or stone fragment is passed, it can be analyzed in a laboratory to determine the type; this can help to guide future treatment. Once the stone is passed, an imaging test (usually ultrasound) of the urinary tract may be performed to confirm that the stone was passed and that no fragments or additional stones remain.
Hospital treatment — In some cases, the child will need to be hospitalized for treatment. The following are the two most common reasons for hospitalization:
* The urinary tract is blocked (obstructed) by the stone, preventing the normal flow of urine. If the obstruction is not treated quickly, it can cause permanent damage to the kidneys.
* The child's pain cannot be controlled because it is severe or because the child is vomiting
In the hospital, the child will be given intravenous (IV) pain medications and IV fluids. If the stone is small, this treatment may be continued for several days, until the stone passes. During this time, the location of the stone is usually monitored with ultrasound and the child's urine will be strained to recover any stone or stone fragments that pass.
However, stones larger than 9 or 10 millimeters (0.4 to 0.45 inches) rarely pass on their own and generally require treatment. Other reasons for treatment include severe pain and obstruction of the urinary tract.
Treatments to eliminate the stone — One or more treatments may be recommended to eliminate a kidney stone. Shock wave lithotripsy is the first-line treatment in most cases.
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) — SWL is the treatment of choice in many children, particularly if the stone is located in the renal pelvis or upper ureter.
To pinpoint the location of the stone, an x-ray or ultrasound is performed. A high-energy shock wave is then directed toward the stone; this passes through the skin and body tissues and causes a release of energy at the stone surface. This energy causes the stone to break into fragments that can be passed. The procedure takes about 20 minutes. Some, although not all, children will require anesthesia to prevent movement during the treatment.
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been shown to be an effective and safe procedure for removing stones in children, including small children and infants. In one study, the overall percentage of children who had no remaining stones after SWL was 73 percent [1]. The success of the procedure depends, in part, upon the size of the stone; larger stones are more difficult to break up and may require more than one treatment. It may take three months for all of the stone fragments to pass.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PN) — Large stones or stones resistant to shock wave lithotripsy may require a minimally invasive surgical procedure to remove the stone, during which the child is given anesthesia to induce sleep and prevent pain. During the procedure, small telescopic instruments are passed through the skin (percutaneously) into the kidney to remove the stone. This procedure may be combined with shock wave lithotripsy.
The percentage of children who have no remaining stones after PN is between 70 and 90 percent, depending upon the experience of the clinician, the size of the stones, and the presence of an underlying abnormality in the kidney, ureter, or bladder.
Ureteroscopy — Ureteroscopy is often used to remove stones obstructing the middle and lower portion of the ureter. Before the procedure, the child is given anesthesia to induce sleep and prevent pain. A small telescopic instrument is passed through the urethra and bladder, into the ureter and kidney. The telescope contains a camera and other instruments, which allows the physician to see the obstructing stone and remove it or to break the stone up into smaller pieces that can pass more easily.
The percentage of children who have no remaining stones after ureteroscopy is approximately 90 percent.
Prognosis — There are inadequate data about the long term prognosis of children who develop kidney stones. The chances of future kidney stones, kidney damage, and other complications depends largely upon the child's age during the first episode of kidney stones and the underlying reason that the stone developed.
PREVENTION — Children who develop a kidney stone have a significant chance of developing stones in the future. Studies have estimated the chances to be between 30 and 65 percent [2]. However, a number of steps can decrease the chance that another stone will develop.
Stones are less common in children than in adults, although the number of children who develop stones is unclear. Most children who develop kidney stones have an underlying condition that increases their risk of stones, although some children develop a stone for unknown reasons.
This topic review discusses how and why kidney stones develop, and the symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and ways to prevent a recurrence of kidney stones. A topic review that discusses kidney stones in adults is available separately. (See "Patient information: Kidney stones in adults").
HOW KIDNEY STONES DEVELOP — A brief overview of the anatomy of the urinary tract will help to explain how kidney stones develop. The urinary tract is composed of two kidneys and ureters, a bladder, and a urethra (show figure 1). Urine is produced by the kidneys, which are located towards the middle of the back, below the ribs.
The kidneys remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood and convert this to urine. The urine passes out of the kidney through small tubules into the hollow portion of the kidney (renal pelvis) and then into the ureter, a narrow tube connecting the kidney to the bladder (show figure 2). The urine collects in the bladder until it passes out of the body through the urethra.
A kidney stone usually forms when substances that are normally found in the urine, such as calcium, oxalate, cystine, or uric acid, are at high levels. However, in some children, stones can also form if these substances are at normal levels. Knowing the stone composition is important as this information may guide therapy (see "Stone testing" below).
The substances form crystals, which become anchored in the kidney and gradually increase in size, forming a kidney stone. Stones that are less than 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) are usually passed without intervention while larger stones usually require treatment.
A kidney stone moves through the urinary tract and, if it is small enough, it will be expelled in the urine. A larger stone may become lodged within the urinary tract, causing pain and sometimes blocking the flow of urine. Occasionally, a stone may not pass into the ureters and can enlarge to fill the entire renal pelvis, which can damage the kidney if it produces infection or obstruction.
SYMPTOMS — The most common symptoms of kidney stones include abdominal or back pain, blood in the urine (hematuria), nausea or vomiting, and the urgent need to urinate. However, some children, particularly young children, do not have any symptoms and the kidney stone is found when an imaging test (eg, x-ray) is done for another reason.
Pain — Pain is the most common symptom of a kidney stone. Pain can range from a mild and barely noticeable ache to intense discomfort. The likelihood that the child will feel pain depends somewhat upon the child's age; adolescents are more likely to have pain than young children.
Typically, the pain waxes and wanes in severity. Waves of severe pain, known as renal colic, can last 20 to 60 minutes, although less severe pain can occur between episodes of renal colic.
The area that is painful depends upon the location of the stone, which may change as the stone moves. The most common areas of pain include the flank (one side of the lower back, show figure 3) and the abdomen. Younger children may not be able to say exactly where they feel pain.
Hematuria — Hematuria (blood in the urine) occurs in 30 to 50 percent of children with kidney stones. The urine may appear pink or red-colored, or the blood may be visible only when the urine is analyzed in a laboratory.
Other symptoms — Other common symptoms include nausea or vomiting, pain with urination, and an urgent need to urinate. Pain with urination and an urgent need to urinate can also occur when a child has a urinary tract infection. An evaluation is needed to distinguish between a urinary tract infection and a kidney stone. However, urinary tract infections are often seen in children with kidney stones. (See "Patient information: Urinary tract infections in children").
RISK FACTORS — Certain factors can increase a child's risk of developing kidney stones.
* History of kidney stones — Children who have had a kidney stone in the past have the highest risk of developing a stone in the future. Children who have one episode of kidney stones are usually advised to follow preventive measures to decrease the risk of developing a stone in the future. (See "Prevention" below).
* Low fluid intake — The amount of fluids a child drinks directly affects the amount of urine that is made. Drinking a small amount of fluids means that less urine is made, which increases the concentration of stone-forming substances in the urine. Increasing fluid intake can reduce the risk of recurrent stones. (See "Increase fluid intake" below).
* Diet high in animal protein — Children who eat a diet with high levels of animal protein (eg, beef, pork, lamb, chicken) may have an increased risk of developing calcium oxalate stones, especially if the child has difficulties with intestinal absorption. However, normal amounts of protein are essential for growth and do not increase the risk of forming kidney stones.
* Ketogenic diet — Diets that include a very small amount of carbohydrates, called ketogenic diets, can increase the risk of kidney stones. Ketogenic diets are sometimes used to treat seizure disorders. (See "Patient information: Treatment of seizures in children").
* Cystic fibrosis — Children with cystic fibrosis are at higher risk of developing kidney stones.
* Urinary tract abnormalities — Anatomic abnormalities of the kidneys or ureters, or difficulties with bladder emptying, increase the risk of developing a kidney stone.
* Medications — Some medications promote formation of urine crystals. These include furosemide, acetazolamide, and allopurinol.
* Inherited disorders — Several uncommon inherited disorders can increase a child's risk of developing kidney stones. Testing for these disorders may be recommended in some cases.
DIAGNOSIS
Urine tests — Two urine tests are recommended for children who are suspected of having a kidney stone. This includes a urine culture, to determine if the child has a urinary tract infection, and a urinalysis, which can determine if microscopic crystals are present in the urine . (See "Patient information: Urinary tract infections in children").
Imaging tests — To confirm the presence of a kidney stone, an imaging test such as a CT scan, ultrasound, or x-ray, is necessary. The imaging test can also help to determine if there are abnormalities of the urinary tract, which would increase the risk for future stones. Computed tomography (CT scan) is the preferred test in most cases.
Computed tomography (CT) scan — A CT scan creates a three dimensional image of structures within the body. A particular type of CT scan (called noncontrast helical CT) can identify almost all types kidney stones (including those that are not seen with the other imaging tests), and can determine if there the stone is blocking (obstructing) the urinary tract (show radiograph 1).
There is some concern about exposing a child to excessive amounts of radiation, especially if the CT scanner uses an adult dose of radiation. In many cases, the amount of radiation can be reduced, based upon the child's size and weight. If this is not possible, another imaging test, such as ultrasound, may be recommended.
Ultrasonography — Ultrasonography (the use of sound waves to visualize body structures) can also be used to detect stones, although small stones and stones in the ureters may be missed. However, ultrasound is the procedure of choice for children who should avoid radiation, such as in pregnant girls or if the dose of radiation in a CT scanner cannot be adjusted for small children.
Abdominal x-ray — Many types of kidney stones can be seen on standard abdominal x-ray (called KUB, kidneys, ureter, bladder). However, certain stones, such as uric acid stones and small stones, may not be seen. As a result, another test, such as a CT scan, may be required if a kidney stone is likely but the abdominal x-ray is negative.
TREATMENT
Treatment at home — If the stone is small, pain is manageable, and the child is otherwise healthy, treatment may be provided at home. Stones smaller than 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) often pass on their own without requiring a procedure, even in young children.
Pain is usually managed with a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug such as ibuprofen (Advil®, Motrin®). In addition, the child is encouraged to drink an increased amount of fluids to help flush the stone out of the kidney, ureter, or bladder. (See "Increase fluid intake" below).
The parent/child will be asked to strain the child's urine for a few days, until the stone passes. Urine strainers are available from most hospital supply stores, and are placed under the toilet seat. If a urinary strainer cannot be obtained, a receptacle covered by cheese cloth or a fine mesh sheet can be used.
If a stone or stone fragment is passed, it can be analyzed in a laboratory to determine the type; this can help to guide future treatment. Once the stone is passed, an imaging test (usually ultrasound) of the urinary tract may be performed to confirm that the stone was passed and that no fragments or additional stones remain.
Hospital treatment — In some cases, the child will need to be hospitalized for treatment. The following are the two most common reasons for hospitalization:
* The urinary tract is blocked (obstructed) by the stone, preventing the normal flow of urine. If the obstruction is not treated quickly, it can cause permanent damage to the kidneys.
* The child's pain cannot be controlled because it is severe or because the child is vomiting
In the hospital, the child will be given intravenous (IV) pain medications and IV fluids. If the stone is small, this treatment may be continued for several days, until the stone passes. During this time, the location of the stone is usually monitored with ultrasound and the child's urine will be strained to recover any stone or stone fragments that pass.
However, stones larger than 9 or 10 millimeters (0.4 to 0.45 inches) rarely pass on their own and generally require treatment. Other reasons for treatment include severe pain and obstruction of the urinary tract.
Treatments to eliminate the stone — One or more treatments may be recommended to eliminate a kidney stone. Shock wave lithotripsy is the first-line treatment in most cases.
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) — SWL is the treatment of choice in many children, particularly if the stone is located in the renal pelvis or upper ureter.
To pinpoint the location of the stone, an x-ray or ultrasound is performed. A high-energy shock wave is then directed toward the stone; this passes through the skin and body tissues and causes a release of energy at the stone surface. This energy causes the stone to break into fragments that can be passed. The procedure takes about 20 minutes. Some, although not all, children will require anesthesia to prevent movement during the treatment.
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been shown to be an effective and safe procedure for removing stones in children, including small children and infants. In one study, the overall percentage of children who had no remaining stones after SWL was 73 percent [1]. The success of the procedure depends, in part, upon the size of the stone; larger stones are more difficult to break up and may require more than one treatment. It may take three months for all of the stone fragments to pass.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PN) — Large stones or stones resistant to shock wave lithotripsy may require a minimally invasive surgical procedure to remove the stone, during which the child is given anesthesia to induce sleep and prevent pain. During the procedure, small telescopic instruments are passed through the skin (percutaneously) into the kidney to remove the stone. This procedure may be combined with shock wave lithotripsy.
The percentage of children who have no remaining stones after PN is between 70 and 90 percent, depending upon the experience of the clinician, the size of the stones, and the presence of an underlying abnormality in the kidney, ureter, or bladder.
Ureteroscopy — Ureteroscopy is often used to remove stones obstructing the middle and lower portion of the ureter. Before the procedure, the child is given anesthesia to induce sleep and prevent pain. A small telescopic instrument is passed through the urethra and bladder, into the ureter and kidney. The telescope contains a camera and other instruments, which allows the physician to see the obstructing stone and remove it or to break the stone up into smaller pieces that can pass more easily.
The percentage of children who have no remaining stones after ureteroscopy is approximately 90 percent.
Prognosis — There are inadequate data about the long term prognosis of children who develop kidney stones. The chances of future kidney stones, kidney damage, and other complications depends largely upon the child's age during the first episode of kidney stones and the underlying reason that the stone developed.
PREVENTION — Children who develop a kidney stone have a significant chance of developing stones in the future. Studies have estimated the chances to be between 30 and 65 percent [2]. However, a number of steps can decrease the chance that another stone will develop.
Kidney Stone Removal Treatment
We believe that this home made remedy for treatment of kidney stones is the best available among all of the products we tested.
Quick Facts: Herbal E-Book Formula
Here is some basic information we compiled for you about a quicker way to treat kidney stones:
Medication Mode: OralKidney Stone Remedy
Product Cost: $47.00
Type: Homemade, over the counter (OTC).
Active Ingredients: Natural products.
Test Results on Our Subjects:
Effectiveness: Excellent
Success Rate: Above 97%
Results: Works on all types of kidney stones.
Side Effects: None
Downloadable Remedy Guide: www.KidneyStonesBreakthrough.com
Our Review:
Renowned health researcher, Mark Anastasi, has written a book that describes a method he has used to treat kidney stones the natural way without using any harsh cures or medications.
The herbal home made formula is revealed in the kidney stones remedy guide. It is a safe, natural way to get rid of kidney stones with relief in good time.
The best thing about this treatment is that there was no recurrence of stones among our test subjects and both the men and the women we tested did not have any symptoms return to them after the treatment. This outcome has never happened previously with any other kidney stone treatment we have tested.
This remedy really has become the treatment of choice for both men and women looking to naturally dissolve kidney stones. The product is potent to pass kidney stones of all types and sizes at a highly effective level, it also reacted favorably with our test subjects who represented a range of ages and were subjects with varying degrees of kidney stone problems.
The ingredients of the remedy have been well-documented in numerous studies to cure the symptoms as well as remove kidney stones painlessly. It is a powerful solution that helps pass stones quickly and smoothly within a short time.
Our Conclusion and Recommendation
We tried lots of treatments on our test subjects to treat kidney stones - from a natural home remedy to over the counter kidney stone products. But this e-book formula is the only treatment which has shown to work on most severe cases without any recurrences. You can’t go wrong with this kidney stone remedy.
To Buy visit official site Here: www.KidneyStonesBreakthrough.com
Tips for Fast Kidney Stone Removal:
Regardless of which kidney stone treatment you take for getting rid of stones you may have, you should abide by the following tips in order to compliment the results of the kidney stone removal medication:
* Increase water intake.
* Begin to exercise.
* Start taking a multivitamin pill.
* Try to lower stress.
* Add more fruits and vegetables to your diet.
Tell Us Your Story
In case you have used this kidney stone treatment before, please inform us whether it has helped you dissolve kidney stones. This feedback provides us with strong grounds for compiling our reviews and helps us to rank this treatment accordingly. Send it to us now! Contact Us
Quick Facts: Herbal E-Book Formula
Here is some basic information we compiled for you about a quicker way to treat kidney stones:
Medication Mode: OralKidney Stone Remedy
Product Cost: $47.00
Type: Homemade, over the counter (OTC).
Active Ingredients: Natural products.
Test Results on Our Subjects:
Effectiveness: Excellent
Success Rate: Above 97%
Results: Works on all types of kidney stones.
Side Effects: None
Downloadable Remedy Guide: www.KidneyStonesBreakthrough.com
Our Review:
Renowned health researcher, Mark Anastasi, has written a book that describes a method he has used to treat kidney stones the natural way without using any harsh cures or medications.
The herbal home made formula is revealed in the kidney stones remedy guide. It is a safe, natural way to get rid of kidney stones with relief in good time.
The best thing about this treatment is that there was no recurrence of stones among our test subjects and both the men and the women we tested did not have any symptoms return to them after the treatment. This outcome has never happened previously with any other kidney stone treatment we have tested.
This remedy really has become the treatment of choice for both men and women looking to naturally dissolve kidney stones. The product is potent to pass kidney stones of all types and sizes at a highly effective level, it also reacted favorably with our test subjects who represented a range of ages and were subjects with varying degrees of kidney stone problems.
The ingredients of the remedy have been well-documented in numerous studies to cure the symptoms as well as remove kidney stones painlessly. It is a powerful solution that helps pass stones quickly and smoothly within a short time.
Our Conclusion and Recommendation
We tried lots of treatments on our test subjects to treat kidney stones - from a natural home remedy to over the counter kidney stone products. But this e-book formula is the only treatment which has shown to work on most severe cases without any recurrences. You can’t go wrong with this kidney stone remedy.
To Buy visit official site Here: www.KidneyStonesBreakthrough.com
Tips for Fast Kidney Stone Removal:
Regardless of which kidney stone treatment you take for getting rid of stones you may have, you should abide by the following tips in order to compliment the results of the kidney stone removal medication:
* Increase water intake.
* Begin to exercise.
* Start taking a multivitamin pill.
* Try to lower stress.
* Add more fruits and vegetables to your diet.
Tell Us Your Story
In case you have used this kidney stone treatment before, please inform us whether it has helped you dissolve kidney stones. This feedback provides us with strong grounds for compiling our reviews and helps us to rank this treatment accordingly. Send it to us now! Contact Us
A Breakthrough Kidney Stone Treatment
As you read through our guide, remember that there is an effective solution already helping many others alleviate their pain and treat their kidney stones. You have to feel more comfortable knowing that there is a proven kidney stone cure now available.
While we review many types of kidney stone treatments, we have received daily testimonials about Mark Anastasi's ebook, a revolutionary natural solution that has been proven to dissolve the stones and eliminate the pain. Many people have written to us about its great success rate, we feel obligated to introduce this solution as part of our welcome to you.
Now you, too, can have access to a product that has received an overwhelming response for its unparalleled ability to provide relief from the symptoms of kidney stones. Have short glimpse into what other people have suffered with the symptoms of kidney stones but how a remarkable solution that has changed their lives.
While we review many types of kidney stone treatments, we have received daily testimonials about Mark Anastasi's ebook, a revolutionary natural solution that has been proven to dissolve the stones and eliminate the pain. Many people have written to us about its great success rate, we feel obligated to introduce this solution as part of our welcome to you.
Now you, too, can have access to a product that has received an overwhelming response for its unparalleled ability to provide relief from the symptoms of kidney stones. Have short glimpse into what other people have suffered with the symptoms of kidney stones but how a remarkable solution that has changed their lives.
Kidney Stone Treatment Reviews of Best Products
Welcome to one of the most comprehensive Internet guides about the symptoms of kidney stones and kidney stone treatment. This free guide offers practical information and effective solutions for getting rid of this common, yet excruciatingly painful, ailment.Picture of Kidney Stones: Such cases require prompt Kindney Stone Treatment.
The goal here is to provide you with easy access to answers about:
* Kidney stone treatment reviews of the latest cures and treatments, including medicinal and herbal remedies.
* Causes, symptoms and risks associated with kidney stones.
* Detailed descriptions of kidney structure and functions.
* In-depth information about preventing kidney stones, such as home remedies and diets which help in kidney stone removal.
* Info on kidney stone surgery and much more.
If you suffer from the symptoms of kidney stones, you know that no matter what the size or shape, they can cause swelling, muscle spasms and agonizing pain - even blocking the flow of urine. Maybe you don’t realize that you have stones and are searching the Internet to find out why you have a dull ache or even sharp pain in your lower back, side or groin area. Perhaps you have experienced mild or serious discomfort during urination.
Having the symptoms of kidney stones may make you feel uncomfortable and irritable - especially when the doctor takes a “wait and see” attitude about treatment for kidney stone. The pain is now so why can’t a solution for the symptoms of kidney stones be close behind?
New scientific studies indicate that there is hope for ending the pain and discomfort associated with stones. This means no longer missing work or canceling social plans because you are consumed with constant irritation and stinging pain - two symptoms of kidney stones - which do not allow you to sit down for any length of time and inhibit you from enjoying many daily activities. While many doctors suggest pain medication, do you know that there are ways to actually dissolve kidney stones instead of waiting for them to painfully pass on their own? You don’t have to wait any longer. Get to the source of the pain now and treat it effectively so that you can end your anxiety, stress and frustration.
The goal here is to provide you with easy access to answers about:
* Kidney stone treatment reviews of the latest cures and treatments, including medicinal and herbal remedies.
* Causes, symptoms and risks associated with kidney stones.
* Detailed descriptions of kidney structure and functions.
* In-depth information about preventing kidney stones, such as home remedies and diets which help in kidney stone removal.
* Info on kidney stone surgery and much more.
If you suffer from the symptoms of kidney stones, you know that no matter what the size or shape, they can cause swelling, muscle spasms and agonizing pain - even blocking the flow of urine. Maybe you don’t realize that you have stones and are searching the Internet to find out why you have a dull ache or even sharp pain in your lower back, side or groin area. Perhaps you have experienced mild or serious discomfort during urination.
Having the symptoms of kidney stones may make you feel uncomfortable and irritable - especially when the doctor takes a “wait and see” attitude about treatment for kidney stone. The pain is now so why can’t a solution for the symptoms of kidney stones be close behind?
New scientific studies indicate that there is hope for ending the pain and discomfort associated with stones. This means no longer missing work or canceling social plans because you are consumed with constant irritation and stinging pain - two symptoms of kidney stones - which do not allow you to sit down for any length of time and inhibit you from enjoying many daily activities. While many doctors suggest pain medication, do you know that there are ways to actually dissolve kidney stones instead of waiting for them to painfully pass on their own? You don’t have to wait any longer. Get to the source of the pain now and treat it effectively so that you can end your anxiety, stress and frustration.
More Effective Alcoholism Treatment
New research is fundamentally changing our understanding of both addiction and recovery. Dozens of new alcoholism medications are in preclinical or clinical testing; many of them target novel pathways, such as the exaggerated stress response that both humans and animals develop under the influence of alcohol addiction, an amped up version of the typical release of adrenaline and other chemicals when we perceive a threat.
But neither new treatments nor existing drugs are making their way to enough patients, says Mark Willenbring, director of the Division of Treatment and Recovery Research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. An antirelapse drug called naltrexone, for example, was approved in the 1990s but is prescribed for only about four percent of those with alcohol dependence. It blocks the brain's reward mechanisms, which are often triggered by drinking.
Willenbring is promoting a new system, in which patients are treated by their primary-care doctors in office visits. He says this model will appeal to people who either don't want or don't need lengthy counseling or inpatient programs. Willenbring spoke with Technology Review about what works in treating alcohol addiction.
TR: What's the biggest problem with the treatments for alcohol dependence available today?
MW: The number-one problem is that so few people with alcohol dependence actually get treatment. Over the lifetime, it's probably fewer than 10 percent.
TR: Why so few?
MW: Most people say they don't need treatment, or that they can handle it on their own.
Part of the reason for that is the interaction between the treatment system and the perceived need for treatment. For example, if the only treatment for depression is to be hospitalized when seriously depressed and to undergo electroconvulsive therapy, that's a high threshold. Most of us would have to be really badly off to go get that. But if treatment meant getting a prescription from your family doctor, that's a much lower threshold. Before that [became available], very few people with depression got treatment, because the treatment was so draconian.
The treatment system we currently have [for alcohol dependence] is separated from mainstream health care and mainstream mental-health care. It was devised in 1975, when all we had for treatment was basically group counseling and AA. So when people think about getting treatment for drinking, they envision going somewhere like the Betty Ford Center.
That system has three main problems: First, most people don't want it; they have to be forced into it. The second problem is that patients within the general health and mental-health system are not getting located or treated. Third, because the programs are built around counseling, they are not staffed by medical personnel. So there's no one there to talk about medications available for treating alcohol dependence. And a lot of counselors don't really believe in [medication].
Consequently, the new treatments we're developing are not being implemented. Try finding a doctor who knows how to prescribe naltrexone for alcohol dependence. They're very hard to find.
But neither new treatments nor existing drugs are making their way to enough patients, says Mark Willenbring, director of the Division of Treatment and Recovery Research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. An antirelapse drug called naltrexone, for example, was approved in the 1990s but is prescribed for only about four percent of those with alcohol dependence. It blocks the brain's reward mechanisms, which are often triggered by drinking.
Willenbring is promoting a new system, in which patients are treated by their primary-care doctors in office visits. He says this model will appeal to people who either don't want or don't need lengthy counseling or inpatient programs. Willenbring spoke with Technology Review about what works in treating alcohol addiction.
TR: What's the biggest problem with the treatments for alcohol dependence available today?
MW: The number-one problem is that so few people with alcohol dependence actually get treatment. Over the lifetime, it's probably fewer than 10 percent.
TR: Why so few?
MW: Most people say they don't need treatment, or that they can handle it on their own.
Part of the reason for that is the interaction between the treatment system and the perceived need for treatment. For example, if the only treatment for depression is to be hospitalized when seriously depressed and to undergo electroconvulsive therapy, that's a high threshold. Most of us would have to be really badly off to go get that. But if treatment meant getting a prescription from your family doctor, that's a much lower threshold. Before that [became available], very few people with depression got treatment, because the treatment was so draconian.
The treatment system we currently have [for alcohol dependence] is separated from mainstream health care and mainstream mental-health care. It was devised in 1975, when all we had for treatment was basically group counseling and AA. So when people think about getting treatment for drinking, they envision going somewhere like the Betty Ford Center.
That system has three main problems: First, most people don't want it; they have to be forced into it. The second problem is that patients within the general health and mental-health system are not getting located or treated. Third, because the programs are built around counseling, they are not staffed by medical personnel. So there's no one there to talk about medications available for treating alcohol dependence. And a lot of counselors don't really believe in [medication].
Consequently, the new treatments we're developing are not being implemented. Try finding a doctor who knows how to prescribe naltrexone for alcohol dependence. They're very hard to find.
Alcohol Use and Abuse: An Introduction
Alcohol use and abuse occurs with a tremendous amount of variability among individuals. Frequently, there is a limited distinction between "social" or "moderate" drinking and "problem" or" harmful" drinking. It is obvious however, that as the frequency of drinking and the amount increases, so does the probability of problem behaviors frequently resulting in medical and psychosocial problems. The focus of this section will be on alcohol use and abuse disorders, which according to the DSM-IV TR include alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. Also included in this section will be information on alcohol induced disorders, which are the psychiatric disorders caused by the direct effects of alcohol on the central nervous system, such as alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal, alcohol induced persisting dementia, alcohol induced persistent amnestic disorder, alcohol induced psychotic disorder, alcohol induced mood disorder, alcohol induced anxiety disorder, alcohol induced sleep disorder, and alcohol induced sexual dysfunction.
A very prominent group of individuals affected by alcohol problems to a significant degree, who develop the syndrome of alcohol dependence are usually referred to by most people as alcoholics. In this section the term alcoholic will be specifically applied to individuals with alcohol dependence. A less prominent group are those who have other problems associated with drinking, but are not necessarily dependent on alcohol. These individuals will be referred to using several terms such as alcohol abusers, problem drinkers, and harmful drinkers. These different groups of individuals with alcohol problems usually require different approaches to diagnosis and clinical management.
The following pages will refer to a large variety of alcohol related problems such as alcohol dependence and abuse, alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal and various other alcohol related disorders. First, we will define alcohol related diagnosis for these disorders. Secondly, we will follow with a section on etiology which defines where these alcohol related disorders come from or what is believed to be their cause. Finally, we will discuss some of the more current treatment models associated with each of the alcohol related disorders, including psychosocial and somatic treatments for individuals with alcohol withdrawal and dependence disorders.
A very prominent group of individuals affected by alcohol problems to a significant degree, who develop the syndrome of alcohol dependence are usually referred to by most people as alcoholics. In this section the term alcoholic will be specifically applied to individuals with alcohol dependence. A less prominent group are those who have other problems associated with drinking, but are not necessarily dependent on alcohol. These individuals will be referred to using several terms such as alcohol abusers, problem drinkers, and harmful drinkers. These different groups of individuals with alcohol problems usually require different approaches to diagnosis and clinical management.
The following pages will refer to a large variety of alcohol related problems such as alcohol dependence and abuse, alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal and various other alcohol related disorders. First, we will define alcohol related diagnosis for these disorders. Secondly, we will follow with a section on etiology which defines where these alcohol related disorders come from or what is believed to be their cause. Finally, we will discuss some of the more current treatment models associated with each of the alcohol related disorders, including psychosocial and somatic treatments for individuals with alcohol withdrawal and dependence disorders.
Institute of Medicine - Alcohol Treatment Recommendations:
The Institute of Medicine commissioned an exhaustive critical review of the research literature related to alcohol treatment. Its conclusions were published in Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems (1990 a) which included the following recommendations:
1. There is no single alcohol treatment approach that is effective for all persons with alcohol problems.
2. The provision of appropriate, specific treatment modalities can substantially improved outcome.
3. Brief interventions can be quite effective compared with no treatment, and they can be quite cost-effective compared with more intensive alcohol treatment.
4. Treatment of other life problems related to drinking can improve outcome in persons with alcohol problems.
5. Therapist characteristics are partial determinants of outcome.
6. Outcomes are determined in part by alcohol treatment process factors, post-treatment adjustment factors, the characteristics of individuals seeking treatment, the characteristics of the problems, and the interactions among these factors.
7. People who are treated for alcohol problems achieve a continuum of outcomes with respect to drinking behavior and alcohol problems and follow different courses of outcome.
8. Those who significantly reduce their level of alcohol consumption or become totally abstinent usually enjoy improvement in other life areas, particularly as the period of reduced consumption becomes more extended (pp.147-148).
1. There is no single alcohol treatment approach that is effective for all persons with alcohol problems.
2. The provision of appropriate, specific treatment modalities can substantially improved outcome.
3. Brief interventions can be quite effective compared with no treatment, and they can be quite cost-effective compared with more intensive alcohol treatment.
4. Treatment of other life problems related to drinking can improve outcome in persons with alcohol problems.
5. Therapist characteristics are partial determinants of outcome.
6. Outcomes are determined in part by alcohol treatment process factors, post-treatment adjustment factors, the characteristics of individuals seeking treatment, the characteristics of the problems, and the interactions among these factors.
7. People who are treated for alcohol problems achieve a continuum of outcomes with respect to drinking behavior and alcohol problems and follow different courses of outcome.
8. Those who significantly reduce their level of alcohol consumption or become totally abstinent usually enjoy improvement in other life areas, particularly as the period of reduced consumption becomes more extended (pp.147-148).
Alcohol Treatment : What really works?
Alcohol treatment comes in many forms. An exhaustive review by Miller and Hester (1986) of the literature on alcohol treatment examined nine major classes of interventions. They found the four most common being drug treatment, psychotherapy or counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous, and alcoholism education. Some the less commonly used approaches included family therapy, aversion therapies, behavior modification methods, controlled drinking and various other approaches spreading across a broad-spectrum of therapeutic approaches. Alcohol treatment is best approached according to Beck, Wright, Newman and Liese, (1993) as a two-stage process which require different interventions at each specific stage. The first set of interventions include promoting changes in drinking behavior toward abstinence or moderation, which frequently utilize some type of behavioral self-control training. The second set of interventions of an alcohol treatment program should be more focused on maintenance of the sobriety, which may involve additional interventions such as social skills training, in order to increase an individuals confidence in relating to drug-free individuals.
For those diagnosed with mesothelioma
For those diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer of the lining of the lung (pleura) or the lining of the abdominal cavity (peritoneum), finding a credible source of information about the disease itself and the medical options available, is of the highest priority. After years of research and synthesis of information, we have assembled a web site and packet for patients and their loved ones. We hope you find this web site helpful.
A mesothelioma diagnosis can be overwhelming, and we are here to answer any questions you might have, and to help you take the steps necessary to find the options that are best suited to your individual needs.
Our staff is experienced and knowledgeable in dealing with mesothelioma patients and their family members, and the service we provide is always with appreciation for the difficult time you are facing. Although you have found us on the Internet, rest assured there are real people here to help. Please feel free to contact us at any time at 1-877-FOR-MESO (367-6376). (Please read disclaimer at bottom of page before proceeding.)
A mesothelioma diagnosis can be overwhelming, and we are here to answer any questions you might have, and to help you take the steps necessary to find the options that are best suited to your individual needs.
Our staff is experienced and knowledgeable in dealing with mesothelioma patients and their family members, and the service we provide is always with appreciation for the difficult time you are facing. Although you have found us on the Internet, rest assured there are real people here to help. Please feel free to contact us at any time at 1-877-FOR-MESO (367-6376). (Please read disclaimer at bottom of page before proceeding.)
Vermont Health Dept. will update study of asbestos mine
Vermont health officials say they will do further investigation of the health risks associated with living near the abandoned Belvidere Mountain asbestos mine in northern Vermont. An early report from the state health department showed an increased risk of asbestosis and lung cancer among those living within 10 miles of the mine. Area
read more »
read more »
Pennsylvania’s Monroe County Housing Authority will remove asbestos
Pennsylvania’s Monroe County Housing Authority plans to remove asbestos from 50 of its public housing units. The duplexes, most built in the late 1950s, contain asbestos pipe insulation in the crawl spaces. Officials say that the asbestos isn’t dangerous to residents now: its condition is good and fibers aren’t being released.
read more »
read more »
Mesothelioma takes life of former Minn. state legislator Dennis Newinski
Dennis Newinski, former Minnesota state legislator and two time congressional candidate, has died of malignant mesothelioma after battling the asbestos-related cancer for two years. He was only 64 years old. After more than three decades working as a union machinist, others approached him and asked that he run for office. He was
read more »
read more »
Mesothelioma widow and asbestos campaigner Nancy Tait dies at 89
Some very successful activists have been compelled to act by personal tragedy and a need for justice. Nancy Tait was just such an activist: she knew a lot about asbestos and industry attempts to cover up the risks associated with it. After her husband died of mesothelioma in 1968, Ms. Tait, a
read more »
read more »
Mesothelioma strikes Georgia teacher, students step in to help
Yonah Hurt never married but worked as a teacher in Macon schools for almost 30 years. Some of her students, like a few members of her 1958-1959 all-girl sophomore class, have remained close to their former teacher. And now, as she struggles with asbestos-related mesothelioma, they have stepped in as caregivers and surrogate
Mesothelioma News
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, this web site is for you.
Mesothelioma News is dedicated to bringing you comprehensive information on a full range of topics about mesothelioma, including treatment, support, and legal help.
On Mesothelioma News you’ll find a great deal of information including:
• The types and symptoms of mesothelioma and diagnosis of the disease
• Up-to-date information about treatment options for mesothelioma
• Support groups and resources for patients and their families
• The relationship between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma
• Protecting your legal rights
Mesothelioma News is your site for the up-to-date information you need if you or a loved one has been affected by this disease.
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of mesothelioma victims for nearly three decades. One of the firm’s founders filed one of the first asbestos lawsuits in the country against asbestos manufacturers. With more than 50 attorneys, over 200 staff, and offices in Texas, California, Louisiana, Ohio, and New York, Baron & Budd is one of America’s largest law firms that fights for the rights of people and families affected by mesothelioma. Our firm has successfully represented asbestos victims from throughout the country. Here are just some examples of compensation we have achieved for our clients:
The cases described here reflect the net amounts of the judgments or settlements our clients received after the deduction of attorneys fees and expenses-in other words, what our clients actually received. The actual settlement or verdict would be higher. These cases were all handled by Baron & Budd attorneys serving as lead counsel.
Specific Results Depend on the Facts of Each Case.
$10,603,661.00 Received by Client after Attorney’s Fees and Expenses for a gentleman who developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to joint compound as a construction worker. This case went to trial and resulted in a significant verdict in favor of the gentleman, his wife and children that was listed by a national legal publication as one of the top verdicts in the U.S. that year. The case subsequently settled.
$6,356,942.00 Received by Client after Attorney’s Fees and Expenses, for the widow of a man who died at the age of 50 after developing asbestos-related mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy aboard nuclear submarines during the 1960s. This case went to trial against the manufacturer of an asbestos-containing pipe covering product. The jury awarded a significant verdict, which was affirmed on appeal.
$4,380,755.00 Received by Client after Attorney’s Fees and Expenses, for an ironworker who worked at a number of industrial sites throughout his career and who was diagnosed with mesothelioma at the age of 79.
Mesothelioma News is dedicated to bringing you comprehensive information on a full range of topics about mesothelioma, including treatment, support, and legal help.
On Mesothelioma News you’ll find a great deal of information including:
• The types and symptoms of mesothelioma and diagnosis of the disease
• Up-to-date information about treatment options for mesothelioma
• Support groups and resources for patients and their families
• The relationship between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma
• Protecting your legal rights
Mesothelioma News is your site for the up-to-date information you need if you or a loved one has been affected by this disease.
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of mesothelioma victims for nearly three decades. One of the firm’s founders filed one of the first asbestos lawsuits in the country against asbestos manufacturers. With more than 50 attorneys, over 200 staff, and offices in Texas, California, Louisiana, Ohio, and New York, Baron & Budd is one of America’s largest law firms that fights for the rights of people and families affected by mesothelioma. Our firm has successfully represented asbestos victims from throughout the country. Here are just some examples of compensation we have achieved for our clients:
The cases described here reflect the net amounts of the judgments or settlements our clients received after the deduction of attorneys fees and expenses-in other words, what our clients actually received. The actual settlement or verdict would be higher. These cases were all handled by Baron & Budd attorneys serving as lead counsel.
Specific Results Depend on the Facts of Each Case.
$10,603,661.00 Received by Client after Attorney’s Fees and Expenses for a gentleman who developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to joint compound as a construction worker. This case went to trial and resulted in a significant verdict in favor of the gentleman, his wife and children that was listed by a national legal publication as one of the top verdicts in the U.S. that year. The case subsequently settled.
$6,356,942.00 Received by Client after Attorney’s Fees and Expenses, for the widow of a man who died at the age of 50 after developing asbestos-related mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy aboard nuclear submarines during the 1960s. This case went to trial against the manufacturer of an asbestos-containing pipe covering product. The jury awarded a significant verdict, which was affirmed on appeal.
$4,380,755.00 Received by Client after Attorney’s Fees and Expenses, for an ironworker who worked at a number of industrial sites throughout his career and who was diagnosed with mesothelioma at the age of 79.
Chrysotile as a Cause of Mesothelioma
Although the association of amphibole asbestos and mesothelioma is clear, the risk from chrysotile exposure has been studied and debated for many years (Browne, 1983; Howard, 1984; Huncharek, 1987; Mancuso, 1989a, 1989b; Churg and Green, 1990; Stayner et al., 1996; Smith and Wright, 1996; Cullen, 1998; Landrigan, 1998; Camus and Siemiatycki, 1998; Osinubi et al., 2000; ATSDR, 2001 ; Hodgson and Darnton, 2001 ; Liddell, 2001, Berman and Crump, 2001, 2003; Britton, 2002; Marchevsky et al., 2003; Egilman et al., 2003; Sporn et al., 2004). Several pertinent reviews are discussed here.
In the final draft to the U.S. EPA of the proposed new method for risk analysis of airborne asbestos fibers, chrysotile is predicted to be 0.13% as potent as amphibole in causing mesothelioma (after adjusting for fiber size). The calculated potency factors are consistent with chrysotile not being associated with mesothelioma. Invited peer reviewers agreed unanimously that the epidemiology literature provides compelling evidence that amphibole fibers have far greater mesothelioma potency than do chrysotile fibers and that short fibers have little or no potency. The authors write on pages 7.49 and 7.50 of the report, "The data are consistent with the hypothesis that chrysotile has zero potency toward the induction of mesothelioma. ... Moreover, the hypothesis that chrysotile and amphibole are equally potent in causing mesothelioma, the assumption inherent in the U.S. EPA (1986) asbestos document, is clearly rejected (p = 0.0007)" (Berman and Crump, 2003). Recent trend estimates for mesothelioma reinforce the concept that amphiboles pose for a greater risk of mesothelioma compared to chrysotile, if chrysotile has any risk (Weill et al., 2004).
Nicholson relied upon the U.S. EPA 1986 risk assessment to conclude that chrysotile is a potent cause of mesothelioma, having a risk that is similar to amosite on a per fiber basis, and that crocidolite has 4 to 10 times higher potency than the other two types (Nicholson, 2001). The final draft of the risk assessment done for the U.S. EPA by Berman and Crump (described earlier) derives more refined and updated results compared to the 1986 U.S. EPA model, one that had its most recent study being published in 1984. Berman and Crump calculated risk coefficients for chrysotile using five cohort studies with exposure quantification that Nicholson did not have in his paper. For chrysotile, Nicholson used the Rochdale cohort studied by Peto et al. (1985) for comparison, but Berman and Crump considered this study to be a mixed fiber cohort. The risk coefficient of Rochdale is approximately 100 times more than the risk coefficients calculated for chrysotile cohorts (see Tables 7-9 of Berman and Crump, 2003). Therefore Nicholson's direct calculation of mesothelioma risk is highly skewed toward that of amphiboles. In another quantified risk assessment, Hodgson and Darnton included 17 studies for mesothelioma exposurespecific risk estimates as opposed to 5 of Nicholson (Hodgson and Darnton, 2000). The new risk assessment model indicates that amphiboles have an optimized dose-response coefficient that is 750-fold higher compared to chrysotile (see Tables 7-18 and page 7.60 of Berman and Crump, 2003). In an effort to arrive at the potency of asbestos fiber types, Hodgson and Darnton (2000) performed a risk assessment focused on cohort studies having adequately quantified exposure data. They determined that the potency rankings for asbestos linked to mesothelioma were in order of magnitude as follows: crocidolite > amosite > contaminated chrysotile.
Smith and Wright (1996) argued that calculations derived from asbestos cohort studies show that the carcinogenic potency of chrysotile is not less than that of crocidolite. They ranked 25 cohort studies having mesotheliomas by the number of pleural mesothelioma cases per 1000 deaths from any cause observed in each cohort. Proportions may generate hypotheses but are not a direct measure of association (Bayne-Jones, 1964). The low numbers of cases and deaths in most of the listed cohort studies result in much uncertainty of the values. For instance, if the foreman had recalled the two other workers' names of many years earlier who were also diagnosed with mesothelioma as having worked on the gas mask line of the plant, then the crude rate would substantially increase (3 cases becomes 5 of 56 members), and the cohort of McDonald and McDonald (1978) would have been ranked first rather than seventh. More important is using upto-date results from cohort studies. Jones et al. (1996) updated the Nottingham cohort study of crocidolite gas mask workers in the paper of Smith and Wright 14 years later, the same year as their publication. There were 67 rather than 17 mesothelioma cases reported in the update. Of approximately 500 deaths noted in the updated report, 53 pleural mesotheliomas were observed resulting in 106.0 per 1,000 deaths, so this cohort would be at the top of their list. Similarly, use of figures of Berry et al. (2004) rather than Armstrong et al. ( 1988) results in top ranking for crocidolite miners and millers. Also, a cohort of workers making gas mask filters is not included (i.e., Gaensler and Goff, 1988). It is not clear why all deaths rather than cancer deaths are used for the calculations. Smith and Wright (1996) did not consider any quantification of exposures but concluded that chrysotile is similar in potency to amphiboles. Their approach is seriously flawed because a conclusion about relative risk of mesothelioma cannot be drawn from a simple ranking unless exposures have been measured, and they ignored small quantities of contaminating fiber types in some cohorts according to Hodgson and Darnton (2000).
Amphibole exposures occurred in America earlier than some authors surmise, which is important is judging potencies of asbestos fiber types. Nicholson analyzed the time course of mesothelioma risk using the 1986 U.S. EPA equation. His hypothesis that pure chrysotile exposure causes mesothelioma is based in part on presumptions about the amount of chrysotile asbestos consumed by the United States from the 189Os to 1930s. In analyses of U.S. insulators who were exposed to asbestos before 1935, several investigators reported that amosite was not used before that year. More specifically, some authors state that U.S. insulation workers were exposed to mixtures of chrysotile and amosite after 1940, but prior to 1937 their exposures was only to chrysotile, and until 1940, only occasionally to amosite (Nicholson and Landrigan, 1996; Stayner et al., 1996; Nicholson, 2001). Nicholson and Landrigan estimate the exposures to U.S. insulators have been 60% chrysotile and 40% amosite based on published product compositions. However, the supposition that crocidolite exposure did not occur earlier for U.S. workers, especially among insulators, has been rejected based on fiber studies of lung tissue (Langer and Nolan, 1998).
Approval dates of the U.S. Navy do not mark the earliest onset of commercial amphibole exposures to any American workers. Asbestos insulation products date from 1866 and had been used and perfected for 8 decades by the close of World War II. The development of amosite felt started in 1934, and the U.S. Navy approved the type made by a specific manufacturer in September 1934 for turbine insulation only. Amosite was the Navy's predominant asbestos fiber. The Navy approved amosite pipe covering from 1937 until about 1971 (Fleischer et al., 1946; Rushworth, 2005). Actually, crocidolite and amosite were used in the United States through the 1920s, according to monthly issues of a trade journal during that time period (see Hodgson and Darnton, 2000). Both crocidolite and amosite were imported for manufacture of thermal insulation products from 1924 or earlier. After 1930, (at least) some of the 81 workers were exposed to crocidolite and all were exposed to amosite based on lung tissue results (Langer and Nolan, 1998), and similar results were seen in a cohort of chrysotile workers (case et al., 2000).
In the final draft to the U.S. EPA of the proposed new method for risk analysis of airborne asbestos fibers, chrysotile is predicted to be 0.13% as potent as amphibole in causing mesothelioma (after adjusting for fiber size). The calculated potency factors are consistent with chrysotile not being associated with mesothelioma. Invited peer reviewers agreed unanimously that the epidemiology literature provides compelling evidence that amphibole fibers have far greater mesothelioma potency than do chrysotile fibers and that short fibers have little or no potency. The authors write on pages 7.49 and 7.50 of the report, "The data are consistent with the hypothesis that chrysotile has zero potency toward the induction of mesothelioma. ... Moreover, the hypothesis that chrysotile and amphibole are equally potent in causing mesothelioma, the assumption inherent in the U.S. EPA (1986) asbestos document, is clearly rejected (p = 0.0007)" (Berman and Crump, 2003). Recent trend estimates for mesothelioma reinforce the concept that amphiboles pose for a greater risk of mesothelioma compared to chrysotile, if chrysotile has any risk (Weill et al., 2004).
Nicholson relied upon the U.S. EPA 1986 risk assessment to conclude that chrysotile is a potent cause of mesothelioma, having a risk that is similar to amosite on a per fiber basis, and that crocidolite has 4 to 10 times higher potency than the other two types (Nicholson, 2001). The final draft of the risk assessment done for the U.S. EPA by Berman and Crump (described earlier) derives more refined and updated results compared to the 1986 U.S. EPA model, one that had its most recent study being published in 1984. Berman and Crump calculated risk coefficients for chrysotile using five cohort studies with exposure quantification that Nicholson did not have in his paper. For chrysotile, Nicholson used the Rochdale cohort studied by Peto et al. (1985) for comparison, but Berman and Crump considered this study to be a mixed fiber cohort. The risk coefficient of Rochdale is approximately 100 times more than the risk coefficients calculated for chrysotile cohorts (see Tables 7-9 of Berman and Crump, 2003). Therefore Nicholson's direct calculation of mesothelioma risk is highly skewed toward that of amphiboles. In another quantified risk assessment, Hodgson and Darnton included 17 studies for mesothelioma exposurespecific risk estimates as opposed to 5 of Nicholson (Hodgson and Darnton, 2000). The new risk assessment model indicates that amphiboles have an optimized dose-response coefficient that is 750-fold higher compared to chrysotile (see Tables 7-18 and page 7.60 of Berman and Crump, 2003). In an effort to arrive at the potency of asbestos fiber types, Hodgson and Darnton (2000) performed a risk assessment focused on cohort studies having adequately quantified exposure data. They determined that the potency rankings for asbestos linked to mesothelioma were in order of magnitude as follows: crocidolite > amosite > contaminated chrysotile.
Smith and Wright (1996) argued that calculations derived from asbestos cohort studies show that the carcinogenic potency of chrysotile is not less than that of crocidolite. They ranked 25 cohort studies having mesotheliomas by the number of pleural mesothelioma cases per 1000 deaths from any cause observed in each cohort. Proportions may generate hypotheses but are not a direct measure of association (Bayne-Jones, 1964). The low numbers of cases and deaths in most of the listed cohort studies result in much uncertainty of the values. For instance, if the foreman had recalled the two other workers' names of many years earlier who were also diagnosed with mesothelioma as having worked on the gas mask line of the plant, then the crude rate would substantially increase (3 cases becomes 5 of 56 members), and the cohort of McDonald and McDonald (1978) would have been ranked first rather than seventh. More important is using upto-date results from cohort studies. Jones et al. (1996) updated the Nottingham cohort study of crocidolite gas mask workers in the paper of Smith and Wright 14 years later, the same year as their publication. There were 67 rather than 17 mesothelioma cases reported in the update. Of approximately 500 deaths noted in the updated report, 53 pleural mesotheliomas were observed resulting in 106.0 per 1,000 deaths, so this cohort would be at the top of their list. Similarly, use of figures of Berry et al. (2004) rather than Armstrong et al. ( 1988) results in top ranking for crocidolite miners and millers. Also, a cohort of workers making gas mask filters is not included (i.e., Gaensler and Goff, 1988). It is not clear why all deaths rather than cancer deaths are used for the calculations. Smith and Wright (1996) did not consider any quantification of exposures but concluded that chrysotile is similar in potency to amphiboles. Their approach is seriously flawed because a conclusion about relative risk of mesothelioma cannot be drawn from a simple ranking unless exposures have been measured, and they ignored small quantities of contaminating fiber types in some cohorts according to Hodgson and Darnton (2000).
Amphibole exposures occurred in America earlier than some authors surmise, which is important is judging potencies of asbestos fiber types. Nicholson analyzed the time course of mesothelioma risk using the 1986 U.S. EPA equation. His hypothesis that pure chrysotile exposure causes mesothelioma is based in part on presumptions about the amount of chrysotile asbestos consumed by the United States from the 189Os to 1930s. In analyses of U.S. insulators who were exposed to asbestos before 1935, several investigators reported that amosite was not used before that year. More specifically, some authors state that U.S. insulation workers were exposed to mixtures of chrysotile and amosite after 1940, but prior to 1937 their exposures was only to chrysotile, and until 1940, only occasionally to amosite (Nicholson and Landrigan, 1996; Stayner et al., 1996; Nicholson, 2001). Nicholson and Landrigan estimate the exposures to U.S. insulators have been 60% chrysotile and 40% amosite based on published product compositions. However, the supposition that crocidolite exposure did not occur earlier for U.S. workers, especially among insulators, has been rejected based on fiber studies of lung tissue (Langer and Nolan, 1998).
Approval dates of the U.S. Navy do not mark the earliest onset of commercial amphibole exposures to any American workers. Asbestos insulation products date from 1866 and had been used and perfected for 8 decades by the close of World War II. The development of amosite felt started in 1934, and the U.S. Navy approved the type made by a specific manufacturer in September 1934 for turbine insulation only. Amosite was the Navy's predominant asbestos fiber. The Navy approved amosite pipe covering from 1937 until about 1971 (Fleischer et al., 1946; Rushworth, 2005). Actually, crocidolite and amosite were used in the United States through the 1920s, according to monthly issues of a trade journal during that time period (see Hodgson and Darnton, 2000). Both crocidolite and amosite were imported for manufacture of thermal insulation products from 1924 or earlier. After 1930, (at least) some of the 81 workers were exposed to crocidolite and all were exposed to amosite based on lung tissue results (Langer and Nolan, 1998), and similar results were seen in a cohort of chrysotile workers (case et al., 2000).
The Best Mesothelioma Law Firm
The usages of attorney become more and more necessarily needed each days. Nowadays attorney has numbers of law job fields that they may choose each specialty in defending their client. According to simmonscooper.com,
simmons-cooper
I found that there are much kind of attorneys depends of what cases they handle. There are attorneys who takes specialties in DWI, murder, trust, or even mesothelioma; a disease that is caused by a rare kind of cancer which is attack lung and abdoment.
At this field, simmonscooper.com is the best Mesothelioma Law Firm according to the contribution that they have won. According to the recent news, Simmons Cooper’s Mesothelioma Lawyer has won Mesothelioma settlement in St. Louis for Millions of dollars.
Moreover, Simmons Cooper’s website does not only provide Mesothelioma Attorney but they also provides news and information about Mesothelioma diseases for education and support. This rare disease has difficulties in recovery treatment, so people should know what the symtomps of pre Mesothelioma are.
Some other proving matters to show that Simmons Cooper is a real deal in taking care of Mesothelioma cases are; an in progress cancer institute that builds by Simmons Cooper, Some other law firms decides to takes part in fighting Mesothelioma with Simmons Cooper Mesothelioma Attorney and another Mesothelioma cases have won in Montana. I think that is enough to concer you that if there is a case of Mesothelioma, you know who you are going to contact.
simmons-cooper
I found that there are much kind of attorneys depends of what cases they handle. There are attorneys who takes specialties in DWI, murder, trust, or even mesothelioma; a disease that is caused by a rare kind of cancer which is attack lung and abdoment.
At this field, simmonscooper.com is the best Mesothelioma Law Firm according to the contribution that they have won. According to the recent news, Simmons Cooper’s Mesothelioma Lawyer has won Mesothelioma settlement in St. Louis for Millions of dollars.
Moreover, Simmons Cooper’s website does not only provide Mesothelioma Attorney but they also provides news and information about Mesothelioma diseases for education and support. This rare disease has difficulties in recovery treatment, so people should know what the symtomps of pre Mesothelioma are.
Some other proving matters to show that Simmons Cooper is a real deal in taking care of Mesothelioma cases are; an in progress cancer institute that builds by Simmons Cooper, Some other law firms decides to takes part in fighting Mesothelioma with Simmons Cooper Mesothelioma Attorney and another Mesothelioma cases have won in Montana. I think that is enough to concer you that if there is a case of Mesothelioma, you know who you are going to contact.
Mesothelioma Legal History
The first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers was brought in 1929. The parties settled that lawsuit, and as part of the agreement, the attorneys agreed not to pursue further cases. It was not until 1960 that an article published by Wagner et al first officially established mesothelioma as a disease arising from exposure to crocidolite asbestos. The article referred to over 30 case studies of people who had suffered from mesothelioma in South Africa. Some exposures were transient and some were mine workers. In 1962 McNulty reported the first diagnosed case of malignant mesothelioma in an Australian asbestos worker. The worker had worked in the mill at the asbestos mine in Wittenoom from 1948 to 1950.
In the town of Wittenoom, asbestos-containing mine waste was used to cover schoolyards and playgrounds. In 1965 an article in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine established that people who lived in the neighbourhoods of asbestos factories and mines, but did not work in them, had contracted mesothelioma.
Despite proof that the dust associated with asbestos mining and milling causes asbestos related disease, mining began at Wittenoom in 1943 and continued until 1966. In 1974 the first public warnings of the dangers of blue asbestos were published in a cover story called "Is this Killer in Your Home?" in Australia's Bulletin magazine. In 1978 the Western Australian Government decided to phase out the town of Wittenoom, following the publication of a Health Dept. booklet, "The Health Hazard at Wittenoom", containing the results of air sampling and an appraisal of worldwide medical information.
By 1979 the first writs for negligence related to Wittenoom were issued against CSR and its subsidiary ABA, and the Asbestos Diseases Society was formed to represent the Wittenoom victims.
In the town of Wittenoom, asbestos-containing mine waste was used to cover schoolyards and playgrounds. In 1965 an article in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine established that people who lived in the neighbourhoods of asbestos factories and mines, but did not work in them, had contracted mesothelioma.
Despite proof that the dust associated with asbestos mining and milling causes asbestos related disease, mining began at Wittenoom in 1943 and continued until 1966. In 1974 the first public warnings of the dangers of blue asbestos were published in a cover story called "Is this Killer in Your Home?" in Australia's Bulletin magazine. In 1978 the Western Australian Government decided to phase out the town of Wittenoom, following the publication of a Health Dept. booklet, "The Health Hazard at Wittenoom", containing the results of air sampling and an appraisal of worldwide medical information.
By 1979 the first writs for negligence related to Wittenoom were issued against CSR and its subsidiary ABA, and the Asbestos Diseases Society was formed to represent the Wittenoom victims.
Two Companies Compensating Quarter of a Million in Asbestos Case
The Hartford Courant reported today (Feb 6), that the Federal authorities fined two firms for mishandling asbestos in building renovation in New Haven in 2002.
The companies are Anderson-Wilcox Corp., and Cutting Edge Concepts LLC. The whopping fine the defendants will have to pay is 300,000 dollars. The settlement was made with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Attorney office of Connecticut.
The companies are Anderson-Wilcox Corp., and Cutting Edge Concepts LLC. The whopping fine the defendants will have to pay is 300,000 dollars. The settlement was made with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Attorney office of Connecticut.
Israel to Pass New Bill on Asbestos Regulation
Environmental Protection Ministry in Israel is putting forward a bill that helps prevent exposure to asbestos by banning its use throughout the country. Asbestos.com reports.
It proposes the quickest removal of asbestos and related harmful substances from all residential and industrial areas. It also stops the permit for asbestos imports to the country for the next ten years.
Continue Reading the full post (150 words)
It proposes the quickest removal of asbestos and related harmful substances from all residential and industrial areas. It also stops the permit for asbestos imports to the country for the next ten years.
Continue Reading the full post (150 words)
Mesothelioma Conference at South Tyneside
The Action Mesothelioma Conference at South Tyneside for people living with the disease is to commence on February 27 at 10 am at Gateshead Civic Center. The Shields Gazette reports.
Mesothelioma is much rampant in South Tyneside due to heavy industries in the past, including shipyards.
Continue Reading the full post (189 words)
Mesothelioma is much rampant in South Tyneside due to heavy industries in the past, including shipyards.
Continue Reading the full post (189 words)
Asbestos Town Gets a New Name
Asbestos.com reports: A town named Amiante in Quebec, Canada has changed its name to stop bad reputation. The name of the town, Amiante means asbestos, the primary cause of mesothelioma, a malignant form of cancer. The new name is ‘des sources’.
Continue Reading the full post (157 words)
Continue Reading the full post (157 words)
Motor Industry Worker (Lady) Died of Mesotheolioma
Derbyshire.co.uk reports factory worker died of mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos in car parts, on February 10th. Working on starter motors and alternators years ago, Gloria Lawrence, of Linton, Swadlincote, Derbyshire, contracted the deadly disease. She was employed to remove scrap parts and clean them for soldering.
Continue Reading the full post (184 words)
Continue Reading the full post (184 words)
Radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma
Evelina Chapman1, Graciela Berenstein2, Marcelo García Diéguez3, Zulma Ortiz4
1Tucumán, Argentina. 2Epidemiology Department, Alejandro Posadas National Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 3Centro de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas,, Academia Nacional de Medicina, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. 4Epidemiological Research Center, National Academy of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact address: Evelina Chapman, Carlos Gardel 768, Dpto 3, Tucumán, 4000, Argentina. evelinachap@gmail.com. (Editorial group: Cochrane Lung Cancer Group.)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1, 2009 (Status in this issue: Edited)
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003880.pub4
This version first published online: 19 July 2006 in Issue 3, 2006. Re-published online with edits: 21 January 2009 in Issue 1, 2009. Last assessed as up-to-date: 8 March 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained).
This record should be cited as: Chapman E, Berenstein G, García Diéguez M, Ortiz Z. Radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003880. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003880.pub4.
1Tucumán, Argentina. 2Epidemiology Department, Alejandro Posadas National Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 3Centro de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas,, Academia Nacional de Medicina, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. 4Epidemiological Research Center, National Academy of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact address: Evelina Chapman, Carlos Gardel 768, Dpto 3, Tucumán, 4000, Argentina. evelinachap@gmail.com. (Editorial group: Cochrane Lung Cancer Group.)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1, 2009 (Status in this issue: Edited)
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003880.pub4
This version first published online: 19 July 2006 in Issue 3, 2006. Re-published online with edits: 21 January 2009 in Issue 1, 2009. Last assessed as up-to-date: 8 March 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained).
This record should be cited as: Chapman E, Berenstein G, García Diéguez M, Ortiz Z. Radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003880. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003880.pub4.
Peritoneal Mesothelioma
Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare aggressive tumor of the peritoneum, regarded as a universally fatal disease. It is poorly described and the knowledge of its natural history is very limited. Occupational and environmental asbestos exposure still remains a public health problem around the world. The incidence has increased in the past 2 decades. Only 20% to 33% of all mesotheliomas arise from the peritoneum itself; the pleura is the most common site of origin.
Lung cancer • 8: Management of malignant mesothelioma
C Parker and E Neville
Respiratory Centre, St Mary’s Hospital, Portsmouth PO3 6AD, Hants, UK
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr E Neville, Respiratory Centre, St Mary’s Hospital, Portsmouth PO3 6AD, Hants, UK;
edmund.neville@smail01.porthosp.swest.nhs.uk
distress and anxiety to patients, relatives, and clinicians. The incidence of mesothelioma has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years, and is expected to continue until 2020 with a projected 1300 cases each year. The 1940s male birth cohort is particularly affected, mesothelioma accounting for approximately 1% of all deaths.1–3 The incidence increases with age and is approximately 10 times higher in men aged 60–64 years than in those aged 30–34.
There is an association with the inhalation of asbestos fibres, which frequently has occurred years previously and sometimes in a seemingly low dose. Mesothelioma is rare in patients without any direct occupational exposure or indirect paraoccupational or environmental exposure.4 Current estimates suggest an occupational history is obtained in over 90% of patients.5 There is no evidence to suggest a safe or threshold level of exposure, but the risk . . .
Respiratory Centre, St Mary’s Hospital, Portsmouth PO3 6AD, Hants, UK
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr E Neville, Respiratory Centre, St Mary’s Hospital, Portsmouth PO3 6AD, Hants, UK;
edmund.neville@smail01.porthosp.swest.nhs.uk
distress and anxiety to patients, relatives, and clinicians. The incidence of mesothelioma has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years, and is expected to continue until 2020 with a projected 1300 cases each year. The 1940s male birth cohort is particularly affected, mesothelioma accounting for approximately 1% of all deaths.1–3 The incidence increases with age and is approximately 10 times higher in men aged 60–64 years than in those aged 30–34.
There is an association with the inhalation of asbestos fibres, which frequently has occurred years previously and sometimes in a seemingly low dose. Mesothelioma is rare in patients without any direct occupational exposure or indirect paraoccupational or environmental exposure.4 Current estimates suggest an occupational history is obtained in over 90% of patients.5 There is no evidence to suggest a safe or threshold level of exposure, but the risk . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
