[ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
hflong at pacbell.net
Wed Sep 6 11:45:32 CDT 2006
100 aspirin - fatal at once, good over a year (to reduce clots and mortality rate).
10 gallons of water - fatal at once, necessary over a year (in some form) to sustain life
1000 usual daily doses of Vit A, D, E, R, etc all at once can poison the liver, etc.
Any prescription I write must have the frequency of the dose, or a pharmacist would not fill it.
Hopefully, I will be permitted to prescribe x-ray therapy, up to 75 rem 2x/week locally for infections like gangrene and rheumatic inflammations like bursitis, and uranium ore for the bedroom of arthritics unable to get to the health mines.
Rate is an integral part of dose.
Ted Rockwell <tedrock at starpower.net> wrote:
Walston Chubb, formerly of Bettis Lab, has sent me a number of letters
making this point, from a somewhat different (e.g thermodynamic) viewpoint.
Didn't you say he had sent you such letters too? They fit in rather nicely
with the subject reports. I should send him a copy of this thread, but I
don't think he has e-mail.
> From: "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)"
> Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:53:57 -0400
> To: ,
> Cc: ,
> Conversation: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE is the decisive variable - the wheel
> ofreincarnation of ideas
> Subject: [Rad_Sci_Health] RE: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE is the decisive variable -
> the wheel ofreincarnation of ideas
> Rainer, All,
> Note that the link to the 1993 review of Delattre's theory is at:
> BRUTER C.P. (Ed)
> It seems to me that the issue of the primacy of dose rate is 70 or 80 years
> old. But ICRP et al. could not be applied to overturn the LNT premise as used
> against medical therapies. However, note that dose rate can be reported as
> just rate. In Jake Spalding's experiments, roughly 4000 mice (in each of
> replicated experiments) were exposed to 5 total external (Co-60) doses, at 6
> dose rates, starting at 4 ages, with about 25 mice in each group. The high
> dose rate of 36000 R/day reflects an actual exposure of 25 R in one minute.
> Doses were 20 to 1620 rad. There was no life shortening, and in a strain with
> very low cancer rates, the cancers were even lower in the exposed groups.
> See, e.g.:
> During the Manhattan Project and subsequent work, e.g., by NCI, dose rate was
> often used as a measure. See, e.g., Egon Lorenz:
> (Report on Manhattan Project work - Zirkle (Ed.) 1954, McGraw-Hill [something
> like Vol. 22?])
> (NCI 1950 - after post-War suppression of data had again been established,
> picking up from the pre-War '30s, led by the FDA to favor drugs over radiation
> therapies - especially with the new antibiotics instead of the serums of the
> E.g., the "Yearbook of Radiology" (Yearbook Publishers) reported on successful
> low dose therapies in the 1947 and 1948 volumes, and none in the 1949 and 1950
> For infections, there are the many papers by Kelley and Dowell, mostly in
> Radiology from 1928-1941, incorporated in their 1942 text on the subject
> "Roentgen Treatment of Infections." See:
> Regards, Jim
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
>> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 6:00 PM
>> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE is the decisive variable - the
>> wheel ofreincarnation of ideas
>> Prof. Raabe's pointer to his publications in the early
>> 1980ies stirred my subconciousness until it unearthed another
>> still earlier source where radiobiological responses were
>> treated as functions of dose-rate as the primary independent
>> variable instead of dose, and where in the most general case
>> response function were drawn as a function of time. I
>> encountered this approach during the Symposia on
>> Microdosimetry, where Pierre Delattre and his co-worker J.
>> Delforge attempted to persuade radiobiologists to look at
>> radiobiological experiments - actually already at their
>> design - from the vantage point of Delattre's systems
>> theoretical formalism (see refs. below). Unfortunately most
>> of them apparently were overtaxed by the mathematics (though
>> mostly only systems of linear differential equations) and -
>> perhaps more importantly - by the required radical redesign
>> of the conventional radiobiological experimentation they were
>> adapted to. In addition, the stage for their proposals was
>> unfavourable since at these Symposia - as in this decade -
>> radiobiologists strove to understand radiobiological effects
>> primarily in terms of the microscopic (later even the
>> nanoscopic!) spatial distribution of initial energy
>> deposition events in abstract sites - though when pressed
>> they would invoke DNA as a target.
>>> From the second book below I copied an interesting graph
>> displaying shapes of time-response functions predicted by his
>> approach which cover hypersensitivity, induced radiation
>> resistance as encountered experimentally many years later and
>> (more interestingly) hormesis - 'predicted' 1971! by a
>> biologically sophisticated systems-theoretical formalism. If
>> the moderator will let this pass, you can see this predicted
>> hormetic response in the attached PDF file.
>> Regards, Rainer
>> Pivotal references:
>> Pierre Delattre
>> Système, Structure, Fonction, Évolution - Essai d'analyse
>> Maloine-Doin, Paris 1971
>> Pierre Delattre
>> L'Évolution des Sytèmes Moléculaires: Bases théoriques -
>> Applications à la Chimie et à la Biologie.
>> Maloine-Doin, Paris 1971
>> Delattre P.
>> Sur l'interprétation des certaines aspects morphologiques des
>> courbes de survie.
>> In: Proc. 5th Symp. on Microdosimetry (Booz J, Ebert H G,
>> Smith B G R, eds.), pp 479-515
>> The Commission of the European Communities, EUR 5452,
>> Luxembourg, 1976
>> I also found a pointer to a slightly more recent short review
>> of Delattre's work in
>> Von: Otto Raabe [mailto:ograabe at ucdavis.edu]
>> Gesendet: Sa 02.09.2006 17:34
>> An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
>> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE is the decisive variable
>> At 02:17 AM 9/2/2006, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
>> Dear Prof. Raabe:
>> Though you apparently detected the ramifications of
>> this fundamental principle quite some time ago, this time the
>> data pertain directly to human cancer mortality (which of
>> course I would expect to display the same regularities).
>> Human cancer is from radium is directly evaluated in:
>> Raabe, O.G., S.A. Book and N.J. Parks (1980) Bone cancer from
>> radium: Canine dose response explains data for mice and
>> humans. Science 208: 61 64.
>> Raabe, O.G., S.A. Book and N.J. Parks. (1983) Lifetime bone
>> cancer dose-response relationships in beagles and people from
>> skeletal burdens of 226Ra and 90Sr. Health Physics 44: 33 48
>> Raabe, O.G. (1989) Scaling of fatal cancer risks from
>> laboratory animals to man. Health Physics 57 (suppl.1): 419-432.
>> Raabe, O.G., L.S. Rosenblatt and R.A Schlenker. (1990)
>> Interspecies scaling of risk for radiation-induced bone
>> cancer. International Journal of Radiation Biology 57: 1047-1061.
>> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
>> Center for Health & the Environment
>> University of California
>> One Shields Avenue
>> Davis, CA 95616
>> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
>> Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
More information about the RadSafe