[ RadSafe ] Radiation Effect - Different?

[howard long]

I second Don's request for a summary statement on the biologic effects of radiation and how it may differ from chemical effect like oxidation.. 
   
   In that microcosm, with Pollycove's numbers (of mutations) to the 10th and 20 th powers (when I can barely visualize 100 or 1,000 of anything), I feel an awe similar to what I feel with the Hubble view of the macrocosm.
   
  Howard Long

Don Higson <higsond at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
  Rainer, Myron, Ted, Otto and perhaps others

Could you possibly put all this together in a short paper? Much of what you 
say below and in foregoing correspondence on this matter, being fragmented, 
is very confusing to the amateur (like me) and even appears contradictory in 
places. It needs the background information, full arguments and other 
material together in logical sequence. I am sorry to be so lacking in 
perception but I feel that I may not be alone. Such a paper might form a 
valuable publication. It would certainly be useful for me, at least, and for 
others too, I believe.

Don Higson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Rockwell" 
To: ; "Muckerheide-MA" ; 
"Muckerheide-home" ; "Raabe, Otto" 
; "Long, Howard" ; 

Cc: "Rad-Sci-L" ; ; 
"Pollycove, Myron" 

Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive 
variable


> Thank you, Rainer. That confirms my detailed discussion last night with
> Myron Pollycove. He notes that radiation does create more double-strand
> breaks than metabolic and other chemical-type damage. He has 
> conservatively
> assumed 2% double-breaks vs. one in ten thousand for metabolic. He tells 
> me
> that the number for radiation has now been directly measured and reported 
> by
> two different researchers, each agreeing on a number like 0.2%. So it 
> would
> take 100s of rad to produce as many double-breaks by radiation as are
> routinely produced by metabolism.
>
> This says to me that the argument that "radiation is different" has little
> real meaning. And that is the fundamental point about my "realism
> argument"; radiation is not some mysterious, unknowable phenomenon from
> which no "ordinary measures" can ever provide adequate protection. Nor 
> does
> the "injured cell" lie around as a unique hazard to the body. It suffers
> the same fate as all other cells. It dies and is replaced.
>
> Otto: I am anxious to know whether you believe I am missing something. If 
> I
> am right, your statement is a distinction without a difference. No?
>
> Ted Rockwell
>
>
>> From: 
>> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:53:58 +0200
>> To: , ,
>> , , ,

>> Ted:
>>
>> On the atomic/molecular level there may be a certain fraction of primary
>> lesions (altered molecules) which do not arise in 'normal' cell 
>> metabolism -
>> though of course I would refrain from claiming that we know ALL about 
>> 'normal'
>> metabolisms. Experimentally we know that densely ionizing radiation such 
>> as
>> heavy ions produces qualitatively - in contrast to quantitatively - 
>> different
>> species of altered/damaged molecules (which by the way - apart from other
>> reasons -invalidates the concept of RBE). To the extent that some 
>> fraction of
>> deposited energy even from 'sparsely' ionizing radiation leads to spatial 
>> and
>> temporal dense concentrations of ionizations it is not unreasonable to 
>> claim
>> that also under low LET radiation molecular damage may ensue which does
>> not/cannot arise in 'normal' metabolism.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the prime message of virtually all findings of the recent 
>> 'new
>> radiobiology' in my view is:
>>
>> "Abandon hope all ye target theory modelers: on the effects of low dose
>> exposures to ionizing radiation and other carcinogens" [Jeffrey L. 
>> Schwartz,
>> Mutation Research 568(2004)3-4]
>>
>> Viz, the initial molecular damage (even that to DNA) is in NO WAY 
>> predictive
>> for the final biological result, (already) on the cellular level, but
>> definitely on the tissue, organ, and whole system level. So I would 
>> discard -
>> unless SPECIFIC molecular species and their SPECIFIC pathways would be 
>> invoked
>> - this
>>
>> "Yeah, but radiation is different."
>>
>> as the irrelevant hand-waving pseudo argument that is, reflecting (with
>> hindsight) the state of knowledge 20+ years ago.
>>
>> Kind regards, Rainer
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von Ted Rockwell
>> Gesendet: Do 07.09.2006 21:43
>> An: Muckerheide-MA; Muckerheide-home; Facius, Rainer; Raabe, Otto; Long,
>> Howard; radsafe at radlab.nl
>> Cc: Rad-Sci-L; Rad_Sci_Health at yahoogroups.com
>> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] dose RATE of ANY Medicine is the decisive
>> variable
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>