[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

Wed Dec 26 19:29:29 CST 2007

Syd,
  And what classical logical fallicies did I use?  I certainly do not equate Dr. Long with a homeopath, and I assume you do know what the difference is.  http://www.giriweb.com/luckey.htm#lsix  The idea of a priming dose is common in the study of hormetic effects.  

  I certainly have no need or desire to impress you.  I have studies the issues for many years, as I hope you have had.  Obviously, you did not have problems with my arguments or statelyments, so I assume that you agree with the gist of them.  

  If I have insulted Dr. Long, I am sure he will let me know.  I appreciate your offer, but I doubt you can teach me much about manners.  I hope that Dr. Long will have the good sense to discuss his medical conditons off-list.  

"Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
  John:

You here engage in your typical argumentation, ripe with classical logical 
fallacies. In the end, you equate Dr. Long with a homeopath, a philosophy 
I have never seen him espouse. Impressive that you are familiar with the 
Arndt-Schulz rule.

Dr. Long does not deserve your continued insulting comments. And if you do 
not believe you are insulting Dr. Long, you need a lesson in good manners.

And Dr. Long, why do you take coumadin? I was on Plavix, but Dr. Wayne 
insisted the blood thinners are grossly over-prescribed. I am wondering why 
you would take such a powerful one.

Syd H. Levine
AnaLog Services, Inc.
Phone: (270) 276-5671
Telefax: (270) 276-5588
E-mail: analog at logwell.com
Web URL: www.logwell.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" 
To: "howard long" ; 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

> Dr. Long,
> Once again you confuse fact with speculation. But that is not unusual 
> for you.
>
> 1. It is interesting that 10 rem is the dose level at which no affects 
> (good or bad) have found in human populations. How does the late Dr. 
> Luckey quantity this level with hormesis? What benefits are there, if 
> any? My understand that acute affects can be mediated by "priming doses," 
> but there is no benefits to subsequent cancer induction in animal 
> populations. If this a one-time dose, what if you receive 10 or 20 rem 
> every year? If he was such a proponent, what did he do to get his 
> hormetic dose? Or did he think that it was not important enough to 
> receive any himself?
>
> Dr. Luckey's work reminds me of Niels Bohr's old saw, that if you do not 
> study physics, you are just collecting stamps. Lots and lots of data do 
> not make for good science. It is the understanding of what are mechanisms 
> of cause and effect that make for science. I admire Dr. Luckey for 
> collecting lots of data, but it has only been in the last decade with the 
> new developments in biology that we are being to understand the science, 
> and not the speculations, of his collection.
>
> What does you "toy" wrist alarm have to do with this discussion? By the 
> way you DO know what the difference is between 100 cGy and 100 cGy/hr?
>
> Again, there is no proof of the benefits of those exposed in the 
> Taiwanese populations beyond the pure speculations of the Chen, Luan, etc 
> paper, http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf (Why does the title end in 
> a question mark?) As noted on page 4 of the pdf "Accordingly, a detailed, 
> official, government-sponsored epidemiologic study of these residents 
> ought to be carried out to address uncertainties arising from the 
> assumptions made in this study."
>
> 2. Of course, there were also the higher incidences of leukemia. 
> However, you may actually want to read the literature. 
> http://www.rerf.or.jp/radefx/late_e/leukemia.html But then why bother.
>
> 3. I assume as a physician that you you understand the difference 
> between a drug and a poison. Many drugs, including aspirin, are toxic a 
> high doses. If you wanted to protect yourself from arsenic poisoning, how 
> much arsenic would you need to protect yourself? As I noted above, a 
> priming dose may prevent or reduce the effects of an acute radiation dose, 
> but there is no evidence that the effect is long lasting, despite what you 
> believe. Further, hormesis is just a new formulation of the discredited 
> Arndt-Schulz rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arndt-Schulz_rule
>
> 4. Again, as it the past, Dr. Pollycove was never a member of the NRC. 
> He served on an advisory committee. However, facts are not really that 
> important. I think that it is important that you have a group to refer to 
> that reinforce your beliefs.
>
> If you want to learn something new, maybe you should attend the NRCP's 
> 2008 Annual Meeting, Low Dose and Low Dose-Rate Radiation Effects and 
> Models, April 14 - 15, 2008, Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference 
> Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852
> http://www.ncrponline.org/
>
> 5. I have looked at this issue of hormesis and low dose, low-dose rate 
> exposure for many years. I find that your beliefs and ideas are wanting. 
> Maybe you should try to make the NCRP meeting.
>
> I am pleased that you recognize the law of Bergonie and Tribondeau effect 
> in CD133-expressed glial cells 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosensitivity
>
>
> If you wish to reply, please do so off-list. These are old and tired 
> arguments, and we should not bore others.
>
>
> howard long wrote:
> Merry Christmas, John Jacobus and Radsafers.
>
> 1, What level?
> "Radiation Hormesis", TD Luckey, p36, shows supplemental radiation
> curves with hormesis at 0 to about 20 cGy (~rem, rad etc) in an acute 
> dose,
> the ZEP (zero equivalent point), after which there is more harm than good
> (indicated by extensive animal and human data).
> Nukalert uses 100 cGy as the point of enough damage to get away.
> The beneficial level of slow dose rate radiation seems much larger, as in 
> Taiwan apartments.
>
> 2, Bomb survivors had lower mortality, except where GI symptoms ~ within 
> a week.
>
> 3, Poison. I take rat poison (coumadin) to slow clotting time, like 
> millions of Americans.
> I also take sun baths (another radiation, "poison" in large dose) for 
> vitamin D, bone strength, etc.
>
> 4, Biological response to radiation, is well studied, reported in 
> journals and presented to
> Doctors for Disaster Preparedness by Pollycove
> (a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and others. It is the 
> stimulation of defenses
> against oxygen disruption. It is many orders of magnitude greater than 
> that caused by the radiation.
> Many presentations are available through www.ddponline.org and 
> www.oism.org/ddp
>
> 5, The flat earth question was raised because the earth does look flat -
> unless one is willing to look from another perspective, like high above
> (or the unexpectedly better health of bomb survivors),
> or other science findings, like globe cicumnavigation (or the unexpected 
> finding
> that rats already overdosed with radiation survive better with additional 
> radiation!)
>
> "In both cell culture and the brains of immunocompromised
> mice, CD133-expressing glioma cells survive ionizing radiation in 
> increased
> proportions relative to most tumour cells, which lack CD133."
> Is variability in cancer cell susceptibility unexpected?
> Generally, slower growing cancers are less affected by radiotherapy.
>
> May this Good News supplement that brought to us 2,000 years ago.
> Howard Long
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: John Jacobus 
> To: howard long 
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:23:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Mortality Rates best ConfirmBenefit from "hormesis"
>
>
> Then. at what level is "radiaton hormesis" beneficial? Did all the 
> Atomic Bomb survivors have a benefit response? You have failed to 
> quantify the value. Are you also implying that all cancers respond the 
> same to same dose or dose rate of radiation?
>
> By the way, which poisons would you take? Radiation is not a poison. It 
> is the deposition of energy that can lead to a chemical reaction, whick 
> can lead to a biological response. However, which responses occur? Cell 
> death, cell recover, or cell mutation?
>
> What does you last paragraph have to do with the discussion?
>
> howard long wrote:
> John,
> The mortality rate would reflect any stimulation - or suppression of 
> cancer.
> Whether bomb exposure or chronic radiation in humans or fast or slow rate 
> in mice,
> hormesis is consistent in radiation as in sunshine as in allergens as in 
> trace minerals.
> Small doses of poison actually benefit.
>
> Is the earth flat because viewed from a limited angle it appears so?
> Howard Long
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: John Jacobus 
> To: Dan W McCarn ; Bjorn Cedervall 
> ; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:46:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Comment to "hormesis"
>
> I find it interesting that those who foster the idea of "radiation 
> hormesis" ignore the effects that are noted below, e.g., radiation 
> eliciting a response that enhances the survival of cancer cells. The 
> deposition of energy from ionizing radiation certainly leads to may types 
> of effects. To cite one the "beneficial" effects and ignore harmful ones 
> is clearly a case of cherry-picking the data that suit idea that one wants 
> to foster. The fact that those who oppose the use the radiation use the 
> same selection process seems to be lost on many people.
>
> We need to understand the various biological mechanisms the lead to the 
> various celluar responses. To blindly say that any radiation is good or 
> bad is without scentific merit.
>
> Dan W McCarn wrote:
> Comment on Hormesis, superficiality, and risk:
>
> There was a very interesting letter in the magazine "Nature" last October
> (on line) and December 2006 (in print) on the causative issues of why some
> types of glioma stem cells (glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer) are 
> quite
> radiation resistant compared to normal brain cells. In the joint work of
> Duke University and at M.D. Anderson, a glycoprotein was identified that
> seemed to trigger radiation resistance. Their study (so far unpublished)
> involved development of a vaccine that "blocked" this glycoprotein
> preventing the glioma stem cells from developing radiation resistance. A
> patient trial is underway. I am familiar with the trial at M.D. Anderson
> because my roommate at Shell Oil was part of that study. Unfortunately,
> "Uncle Bernie" recently succumbed to the disease at the age of 86.
>
> Apparently there are some quite specific mechanisms that are activated by
> radiation allowing preferential repair of DNA. In the words of the
> researchers, this glycoprotein causes "preferential activation of the DNA
> damage checkpoint response and an increase in DNA repair capacity". They
> state further that "In both cell culture and the brains of 
> immunocompromised
> mice, CD133-expressing glioma cells survive ionizing radiation in 
> increased
> proportions relative to most tumour cells, which lack CD133."
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/abs/nature05236.html;jsessio
> nid=36E763E243740EF743B851AAED61387A
>
> I find it to be quite unfortunate that while cancer researchers seem to
> embrace causative mechanisms for radiation resistance, there still appears
> to be quite mixed and jaded response to the rather blunted word 
> "Hormesis";
> perhaps the word "radioresistance" might be more palliative.
>
> While I am but a "mere" geologist, this article helped focus my
> understanding that very specific cellular mechanisms account for what 
> others
> might call "Hormesis"; which appears to be too vague a term for many to be
> able to "digest". In this way, I agree with Bjorn.
>
> But to dismiss radioresistance out of hand, especially with specific 
> models
> being actively researched, seems perfectly absurd.
>
> The abstract follows.
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; 
> USA
> Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Fax: +1-713-241-1012; 
> Office:
> +1-713-241-5726
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com, Dan.McCarn at shell.com
>
>
> Letter
> Nature 444, 756-760 (7 December 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05236; Received 
> 1
> June 2006; Accepted 7 September 2006; Published online 18 October 2006
>
> Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of 
> the
> DNA damage response
> Shideng Bao1,2, Qiulian Wu1,2, Roger E. McLendon2,3, Yueling Hao1,2, Qing
> Shi1,2, Anita B. Hjelmeland1,2, Mark W. Dewhirst4, Darell D. Bigner2,3 and
> Jeremy N. Rich1,2,5,6
>
> Department of Surgery,
> Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center,
> Department of Pathology,
> Department of Radiation Oncology,
> Department of Medicine, and,
> Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North
> Carolina 27710, USA
> Correspondence to: Jeremy N. Rich1,2,5,6 Correspondence and requests for
> materials should be addressed to J.N.R. (Email: rich0001 at mc.duke.edu).
>
>
> Top of pageIonizing radiation represents the most effective therapy for
> glioblastoma (World Health Organization grade IV glioma), one of the most
> lethal human malignancies1, but radiotherapy remains only palliative2
> because of radioresistance. The mechanisms underlying tumour 
> radioresistance
> have remained elusive. Here we show that cancer stem cells contribute to
> glioma radioresistance through preferential activation of the DNA damage
> checkpoint response and an increase in DNA repair capacity. The fraction 
> of
> tumour cells expressing CD133 (Prominin-1), a marker for both neural stem
> cells and brain cancer stem cells3, 4, 5, 6, is enriched after radiation 
> in
> gliomas. In both cell culture and the brains of immunocompromised mice,
> CD133-expressing glioma cells survive ionizing radiation in increased
> proportions relative to most tumour cells, which lack CD133.
> CD133-expressing tumour cells isolated from both human glioma xenografts 
> and
> primary patient glioblastoma specimens preferentially activate the DNA
> damage checkpoint in response to radiation, and repair radiation-induced 
> DNA
> damage more effectively than CD133-negative tumour cells. In addition, the
> radioresistance of CD133-positive glioma stem cells can be reversed with a
> specific inhibitor of the Chk1 and Chk2 checkpoint kinases. Our results
> suggest that CD133-positive tumour cells represent the cellular population
> that confers glioma radioresistance and could be the source of tumour
> recurrence after radiation. Targeting DNA damage checkpoint response in
> cancer stem cells may overcome this radioresistance and provide a
> therapeutic model for malignant brain cancers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On 
> Behalf
> Of Bjorn Cedervall
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:31 PM
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Comment to "hormesis"
>
> Hormesis is a mix of many different phenomena. Therefore the concept 
> causes
> confusion unless each phenomenon is analyzed and interpreted separately:
> adaptive response (priming, by-stander effects, genomic instability,
> induction of radical scavengers & repair enzymes etc), stress mechanisms,
> evolution of evolvability (including tuning of mutation rates), natural
> (statistical) selection against those least fit, the individual vs. the 
> gene
> pool of the same species etc, interpretation of what is good/bad for an
> individual vs. the corresponding population and so on. This boils down to:
>
> The concept "hormesis" gives no help in the understanding of radiation
> biology and all its subtopics can be discussed under headings such as 
> those
> just mentioned (part of evolutionary biology). It was perhaps OK to lump 
> all
> the different biological phenomena ("radiation is beneficial"...) 30 to 70
> years ago but today when we know so much more about radiobiological
> mechanisms we do not have any use for that word.
>
> Hormesis is often referred to in a superficial way like "radiation is good
> for you" which basically only can hurt the nuclear industry because the
> business may be perceived as being driven by narrow minded cynical risk
> takers which, as most of us know, is far from the dominating attitude.
>
> My personal ideas only,
>
> Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com
> PhD, Associate Professor (Medical Radiation Biology, Karolinska 
> Institutet)
> MSc (Theoretical Chemistry: Nuclear chemistry & biochemistry, Royal
> Institute of Technology)
> Radiology specialist (Nuclear power safety) - have now been in this field
> for 24 years.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "If history teaches any lesson it is that no nation has an inherent right 
> to greatness. Greatness has to be earned and continually re-earned."
> - Norman Augustine, Chairman of the National Academies Committee
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! 
> Search.
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"If history teaches any lesson it is that no nation has an inherent right to greatness.  Greatness has to be earned and continually re-earned."
- Norman Augustine, Chairman of the National Academies Committee 

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.