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

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

>>Recall that cancer is not the result of initiation and progression of damaged cells, rather it is the result of a breakdown of tissue controls (of "cell-society").<<

Words - next to perfectly - conveying relevant concepts!  :-)

Congratulations, Rainer

________________________________

Von: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA) [mailto:Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us]
Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 17:51
An: Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide-home; Facius, Rainer; Raabe, Otto; Long, Howard; radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com; Rad-Sci-L
Betreff: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable


Ted,
 
It seems to me that radiation-induced free radicals that causes a lesion in a cell is "stochastic" (random probabilistic results).  But, cell damage, and its repair and removal, and enhanced immunological responses (much less its initiation and progression to cancer), are functions of the stimulated biological mechanisms at low doses (as with immunological and other stimulation, whether chemical, heat, exercise, which similarly increase heat shock proteins, p53 anti-cancer genes and proteins, TNF-beta, glutathione and SOD, causing tissue-building, etc.  These mechanisms produce improved physical conditions, general health and disease control, especially infections and inflammatory conditions, enhancing the ability of tissues to remove or inactivate damaged cells.  Recall that cancer is not the result of initiation and progression of damaged cells, rather it is the result of a breakdown of tissue controls (of "cell-society"). Measures of such damage are not related to progress to cancer or other diseases. Such results are actually "deterministic" if organs and organisms are otherwise debilitated, which generally includes effects organisms that are genetically deficient. 
 
High dose responses trigger entirely different sets of genes, proteins, enzymes, immune molecules, or in opposite directions, which initiate different functions that cause error-prone damage control cell proliferation, repair, apoptosis, etc.  
 
Regards, Jim 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock at starpower.net] 
	Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:18 AM
	To: Muckerheide-home; Rainer Fascius; Raabe, Otto; Long, Howard; Muckerheide-MA; radsafe at radlab.nl
	Cc: Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com; Rad-Sci-L
	Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive variable
	
	
	Jim:
	
	One can't help but admire the specificity and relevance, not to mention the promptness, of your nailing Dr. Goethe's position on this matter.  And I can see how it applies to radiation.  But I'm still not clear as to how, say a metabolic release of a free radical that then attacks a cell, is a fundamentally different process.  I think Goethe might apply the same words to it.
	
	What say ye?  And Otto: where do you stand on this?
	
	TR
	
	
	
________________________________

	From: Muckerheide <muckerheide at comcast.net>
	Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:47:17 -0400
	To: Rainer Fascius <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>, "Dr. Otto Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>, <hflong at pacbell.net>, Theodore Rockwell <tedrock at starpower.net>, Jim Muckerheide-MEMA <jim.muckerheide at state.ma.us>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>
	Cc: <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
	
	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
		***********************************************