[ RadSafe ] AW: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Thu Sep 7 11:27:54 CDT 2006
a major (if not the most important) point which Gregoire&Cleland attempt to make is that we have to identify the proper time scale which is characteristic for the action of the defensive mechanisms undoing the damage inflicted on the molecular level by radiation. The fuzziness of their database allowed them just to rule out total dose (which does not at all relate to time) and the average/maximum dose per week. Their best guess for the proper time interval turned out to be the day. So, in the spirit of their argument, dose rates other than per day may not be useful as a predictor of cancer risk.
I concur with your characterization of the chronic Taiwan residential radiation exposures as a most important data base relevant for the assessment of the risk from chronic low LET radiation. On the other hand, the presentation of the epidemiological data (in contrast to the dosimetric) in the publications which I know, e.g., Is chronic radiation an effective prophylaxis against cancer? J. Am. Phys. Surg. 9#1(2004)6-10 leaves too many possible and legitimate questions unanswered to count as a definite account of that experience. (I do not claim that you don't have answers but just that you did not present them in this paper).
I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues will continue to evaluate this data base and provide a follow-up report which is less prone to valid criticism. (Any criticism if offered with sufficient precision is valid.)
Best regards, Rainer
Von: yuan-chi luan [mailto:nbcsoc at hotmail.com]
Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 04:33
An: hflong at pacbell.net; tedrock at starpower.net; jim.muckerheide at state.ma.us; Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU; Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com
Betreff: RE: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
Dear Howard and all friends:
I think your still remember the most coincidentally experiments conducted by human beings on the health effects of radiation in the Taiwan Co-60 contaminated apartments incident. I would like to present you the dose rate per hour, per day and per year in the incident for your consideration in this issue:
1, The Taiwan Co-60 incident was first discovered in 1992, all the apartments were built in 1981~1984, and most in 1983. When a big scale searching program was conducted in 1996, there were many apartments surveyed with dose rate per hour in greater than 1 mSv/hr in the key positions (of course much higher in 1983). The key positions are the sofa in the living room, the bed in the bedroom and the stove in the kitchen or the table in the study room.
2, In the survey operation, the dose rate per day in the apartments had been roughly calculated right away, it was equivalent to dose rate per hour at sofa multiple 12hrs¤Qdose rate per hour at bed multiple 8 hrs¤Qdose rate per hour at stove or study table multiple 4hrs, and then divided the doses by 24 hrs. The dose rate was always lower than 24 mSv/day.
1. In the survey operation, the dose rate per year could be also calculated right away. It was equivalent to dose rate per day multiple 365 days, and modified with various factors, such the days would not be 365 and the radiation would decay. The dose rate per year was averaged to be about 50 mSv/y, the highest one was about 1000 mSv/y in 1983, then it could be based for roughly determining the dose rate and the total doses in different year
4. The most important of the incident was the health effects of the chronic radiation we observed in Taiwan Co-60 incident was that the cancer mortalities of the resident was sharply reduced to a few percentage of the general population, even the dose rate per year and accumulated doses to quite high.
Y.C. Luan Senior Scientist of NuSTA and Consultant of NBC Society
From: howard long <hflong at pacbell.net>
To: Ted Rockwell <tedrock at starpower.net>, Muckerheide-MA <jim.muckerheide at state.ma.us>, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de, radsafe at radlab.nl
CC: Rad-Sci-L <rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU>, Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com
Subject: dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
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
> 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
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
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 ?la Chimie et ?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