AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable

[howard long]

Why does my Word keep highlighting as NOT a word,  "hormesis"?
  Haven't we brought the programmers up to date, or is there active opposition to nuclear benefit by A- bomb paralytics in the electronics industry?
   
  Howard Long

"Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us> wrote:
      Good point Joe.  And when you say"
   
  "But then, when concepts (understanding) fail, the proper word appears."

Perhaps that also explains why the word "hormesis" has appeared!?
  Regards, Jim 
    
  -----Original Message-----
From: Joe Alvarez [mailto:jalvarez at nxs.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:01 AM
To: Muckerheide
Cc: Rainer Fascius; Dr. Otto Raabe; hflong at pacbell.net; Theodore Rockwell; Jim Muckerheide-MEMA; radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable


The more appropriate translation might be
doch ein Begriff muß bei dem Worte sein

    There is a meaning (concept) for each word.

Denn eben, wo Begriffe fehlen, da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein

    But then, when concepts (understanding) fail, the proper word appears.

As with all translations, the context is all important. But Goethe got it right in this case. The word stochastic was redefined or the definition extended to conform to LNT. Stochastic is still a good word in probability theory. In the world of ICRP it has taken on the sense of law.

Joe Alvarez


Muckerheide wrote:   Dear Rainer,  I find:

 From the notes of a 1995 law article by Theodor Schilling, at:
http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/95/9510ind.html  

[6] ... And cf Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Faust, The First Part of the Tragedy (W. Kaufmann, transl.) (Doubleday, Garden City NY 1961) line 1995 et seq: "Denn eben, wo Begriffe fehlen, da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein" (For just where no ideas are, The proper word is never far).

 [7]  Cf Goethe, ibid, line 1993: "doch ein Begriff muß bei dem Worte sein" (Yet some idea there must be).

In the context of:

  Introduction
A. The 1991 Maastricht Conference on the Political Union was saved, it is sometimes claimed, by one word: subsidiarity [1]. Indeed, this word, or the concept expressed by it, introduced into the then EEC Treaty for the first time by the Single European Act (SEA), in the context of the environmental policy (Art. 130 r (4) EECT) [2], has been used widely throughout the Maastricht Treaty. It is part of the European Treaties now in at least four places: the second penultimate recital in the preamble of the Maastricht Treaty (expressly), Art. A (2) of the Maastricht Treaty (impliedly), Art. B (2) of the Maastricht Treaty (expressly) and, last but not least, Art. 3b (2) ECT [3]. It is now the second most often mentioned principle in the European Treaties; only the prohibition of discrimination is mentioned in more places. Its specific importance is underscored by the decisive rôle it played in the success of the Maastricht Conference and in the ultimately succesful efforts to
 dispel widespread popular concern about the Maastricht Treaty [4]. Plainly, therefore, it appears at the outset that it must be taken very seriously indeed [5].

However, a lingering doubt subsists. Could it possibly be that "the word that saved Maastricht" is just that, just a word, bare of any concept [6]? It may well be that this was the intention of some, or even many, of the delegations at the Maastricht Conference. However, it is not possible to ascertain how the individual members of the Maastricht Conference conceived of this word. Neither is it necessary. They introduced the word into what, after ratification, became the amended treaties, and it is there, in the treaties, where its meaning, the concept of subsidiarity, must be found [7]. 

Perhaps you can your sense of the faithfulness of the English to Geothe’s intent; to your intent. :-)

Regards, Jim
===========

on 9/7/06 4:39 AM, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de at Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

  << All of these examples refer to deterministic processes rather than stochastic processes, so no LNT advocate would consider them  to be relevant for evaluating radiation induced cancer. >>

Prof. Raabe's point is well taken - provided the distinction between 'deterministic' and 'stochastic' effects is more than a reflection of our drive (and associated incapability) to systematize the realm of nature with our limited comprehension. Today, for me this classification is hardly more than this. Forgive me, if I quote Goethe with his unequalled characterization in his Faust I of this dilemma:

Student (V.1993):
"Doch ein Begriff muß bei dem Worte sein."
Mephisto (V.1995-6):
"Denn eben wo Begriffe fehlen, da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein."

(perhaps some one can provide the English version)

Operationally, after stripping off the associated verbiage, in the final analysis an effect is stochastic by definition, if its probability of occurrence increases linearly with 'dose' without threshold, i.e., "stochastic" and "LNT" are synonymous. From that definition it has yet to demonstrated that stochastic (radiation) effects do in fact exist.

Regards, Rainer



________________________________

Von: Otto Raabe [mailto:ograabe at ucdavis.edu]
Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 00:23
An: howard long; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide-MA; Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com; Rad-Sci-L
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable


At 09:45 AM 9/6/2006, howard long wrote:


    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. 

****************************************************
All of these examples refer to deterministic processes rather than stochastic processes, so no LNT advocate would consider them  to be relevant for evaluating radiation induced cancer.

Otto



**********************************************
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
***********************************************