[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

Syd H. Levine syd.levine at mindspring.com
Wed Dec 26 22:58:17 CST 2007


At one time or another, just about all of em.  Your assumption that I agree with you because I did not engage in active debate is one example in the email below.

Did I offer to teach you manners?  I did not.  I work in the oilfields, and we are not noted for our good manners.  I merely suggested that you need a lesson in good manners if you believe you have not been insulting to the good doctor.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Jacobus 
  To: Syd H. Levine ; howard long ; radsafe at radlab.nl 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

  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:

    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.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list