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

[Ted Rockwell]

Jim:

I understand that much (I think), but is there a real biological, and
logical, basis for saying that the processes involved in radiation damage
(and healing, or progression to cancer)  are of a fundamentally different
kind than damage from metabolism or other stimuli?  For if they are, then
the whole Pollycove/Feinendegen argument fails.  I think a lot hangs on the
validity, or invalidity of the argument (that seems to trump all others)
that ³Yeah, but radiation is different.²

I¹d like to get really clear on that.

Ted Rockwell



From: "Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)" <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:51:25 -0400
To: Ted Rockwell <tedrock at starpower.net>, Muckerheide-home
<muckerheide at comcast.net>, Rainer Fascius <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>, "Raabe,
Otto" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>, "Long, Howard" <hflong at pacbell.net>,
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Cc: <Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com>, Rad-Sci-L <rad-sci-l at wpi.edu>
Conversation: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive
variable
Subject: 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 can¹t help  but admire the specificity and relevance, not to mention the
> promptness, of  your nailing Dr. Goethe¹s position on this matter.  And I can
> see how it  applies to radiation.  But I¹m 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 Geothe¹s
> 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
>> ***********************************************
>> 
>> 
> 
>