[ RadSafe ] The Role of Low-Dose Radiation in the Maintenance ofLife

[John Jacobus]

Jim,
I do read the literature. Just a different set, based
on oncology and research of what is being discovered
and not on speculation.  I guess that I do not view
this issue as a simplist set of ideas that all low
dose radiation is good. I have to respond to questions
about radiation doses, so I have to respond what is
know and not speculation.  It is quite different to
say that there are no know harmful effects below 10
rem and saying that all radiation is harmful.  There
is a distinct difference that I hope you appreciate.
By the way, at what doses above backgroud are these
beneficial effects of low-dose radiation seen? 
Please, do not send me a list of article.  A simple
table will do.  

What you call cheap shots, I consider to be
information.

--- "Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)"
<Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:17 PM
> > 
> > Jim,
> > I am not sure what we all know.  
> 
> Right.  My point exactly.  You really should read
> the literature more.
> 
> >My point is that the
> > mechanisms for cell, and particularly cancer cell
> > repair is not clear.  You say the low doses of
> > ionizing radiation "stimulate" repair enzymes. 
> What
> > if the same radiation stimulates cancer stem
> cells? 
> > Are you saying that could not happen? Cells and
> their
> > interactions are complex, and I doubt all repairs
> > actions are beneficial.  Do you?
> 
> Sure; it happens.  But other mechanisms destroy
> cancer cells.  We know
> that, before angiogenesis in solid tumors, low-dose
> radiation protects
> against (suppresses, kills) pre-cancerous cells and
> early cancer cells
> and metastatic cells through specific
> stimulation/suppression
> mechanisms.  Note that these functions are primarily
> mediated through
> tissue responses, not just the cell/DNA responses
> that are used/abused
> by LNT apologists to claim a biological basis for
> "any radiation is
> damaging" (especially when we know that, without
> low-dose radiation,
> organisms are debilitated, and even die.
> 
> > By the way, you really do not have to defend Dr.
> > Scott.  I am sure that if he wants to respond to
> me,
> > he will do so.
> 
> I certainly don't HAVE to; but I would think that I
> can if I want to!
> :-) (At least as much as you can take cheap shots;
> especially since,
> like many serious research scientists, he might not
> deign to respond to
> such disingenuous commentary.)
> 
> Regards, Jim
> 
> 
> > --- "Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)"
> > <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:
> > 
> > > John,
> > > 
> > > You misrepresent the paper. It does NOT report
> that
> > > "radiation may increase cancer cell
> proliferation."  
> > > It does say that (as we all know), the cell
> cycle 
> > > checkpoint mechanism is a delay that provides
> for repair
> > > of radiation damage.  Of course, this is a high
> dose
> > > condition.  We also know that low doses
> stimulate 
> > > repair enzymes that enhance that function in
> cells,
> > > in_vivo, ex_vivo and in_vitro.  The paper does
> say that
> > > they found that this also applies to
> radiation-resistant
> > > cancer "stem cells" (again at high rad therapy
> doses).
> > > 
> > > However, Dr Scott is a research scientist of
> > > long-standing and high credentials.  He reports
> what 
> > > he finds is known to science.  Unlike political 
> > > operatives, he is not obliged to mischaracterize
> 
> > > information to create "another side" like ICRP,
> NCRP,
> > > BRER/BEIR and other politically motivated
> individuals.  
> > > 
> > > As I have said for 10 years re NCRP's claim that
> they
> > > stand in the
> > > middle of "the two extremes" (especially after
> their
> > > explicit misrepresentations of data at our June
> 1995
> > > sessions) they saying that they stand in the
> middle 
> > > of people saying 2+2=4 and the anti's who say
> > > 2+2=22.  So NCRP says 2+2=13 and claims the
> moral
> > > high ground.  They even wrote this in a letter 
> > > equating Bernie Cohen and two other credible
> > > scientists, to Helen Caldicott and two other
> antis.
> > > 
> > > Regards, Jim 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl 
> > > > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
> Of
> > > John Jacobus
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:12 AM
> > > > To: Scott, Bobby; radsafe at radlab.nl
> > > > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] The Role of Low-Dose
> > > > Radiation in the Maintenance of Life 
> > > > 
> > > > Dr. Scott,
> > > > Do you also note that radiation may increase
> > > > cancer cell proliferation?  I also try to
> present 
> > > > both sides of controversial topics.  
> > > > 
> > > > From another posting:  
> > > > 
> > >
> http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=9922
> > > >    
> > > >   Cancer stem cells linked to radiation
> resistance
> > >  
> > > > DURHAM, N.C. -- 
> > > > 
> > > > Certain types of brain cancer cells, called
> cancer
> > > > stem cells, help brain 
> > > > tumors to buffer themselves against radiation
> > > > treatment by activating a 
> > > > "repair switch" that enables them to continue
> to
> > > > grow unchecked, 
> > > > researchers at Duke University Medical Center
> have
> > > > found.
> > > > . . .
> > > > 
> > > > --- "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Dear Colleagues:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Today I presented an in-house seminar at our
> > > > > Institute entitled "The
> > > > > Role of Low-Dose Radiation in the
> Maintenance of
> > > > > Life".  The seminar
> > > > > points out how low doses and dose rates of
> > > > > low-LET radiation have been
> > > > > demonstrated to suppress the occurrence of
> > > > > cancer and other diseases. I
> > > > > have made a pdf version of seminar slides. 
> I
> > > > > would be happy to send the
> > > > > pdf file to those who have and interest. 
> Just
> > > > > send an e-mail to me
> > > > > requesting the presentation.  Other related
> > > > > presentations are available
> > > > > in the Low Dose Research section of my
> website:
> > > > > www.radiation-scott.org.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Bobby R. Scott
> > > > > Senior Scientist
> > > > > Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
> > > > > 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
> > > > > Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. 
Dwight D. Eisenhower  

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business 
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)