[ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation

HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Tue Sep 2 11:06:24 CDT 2008

"-how it would be applied to the radiation workers?"
Benefit of up to 10 rem, recognition of hormesis,
 should repeal regulations prohibiting such!

"To members of the public?"
Provide option. As iodine in salt reduced goiter,
Co60 in rebar, radiation dosed apartment choice, could be provided 
 to emulate the experience of Taiwan apartments that accidentally reduced cancer.

Howard Long
-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> 

> Rainer, 
> I am puzzled why you would even mentioned hormesis when commenting on this 
> article. It appears to me that the "magic" of hormesis is slowly dissipating as 
> better and better science shows what biological responses lead to the observed 
> low dose effects. 
> Hormesis has always lacked a relevancy to real life. Tell me how it would be 
> applied to the radiation workers? To members of the public? As you note, this 
> experiment is irrelevant to low dose radiation issues, but so is hormesis. 
> +++++++++++++++++++ 
> It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational 
> results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory. 
> Arthur Eddington 
> -- John 
> John Jacobus, MS 
> Certified Health Physicist 
> e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com 
> --- On Mon, 8/25/08, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote: 
> From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de 
> Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation 
> To: crispy_bird at yahoo.com, radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 5:02 AM 
> Dear John, 
> the article by Mancuso et al. (2008) has been discussed here with respect to 
> its improper use of the term "bystander effect" instead of the proper 
> and long established term "abscopal effect" and with respect to the 
> dose the cerebellum of the shielded mice did receive due to finite attenuation 
> of the shields and due to backscattering from the body of the mice. Furthermore 
> it was pointed out that the findings from this experiment are irrelevant 
> regarding low dose radiation protection issues. 
> To my knowledge, in this discussion the term hormesis has not been mentioned at 
> all but once by myself. I drew attention to the fact (fig. 2D and fig. S1 of the 
> supplement) that the data by Mancuso et al. exhibit the lowest (in fact zero) 
> incidence of medulloblastoma not for the un- or sham irradiated animals but for 
> those unshielded animals which were exposed to a uniform whole body dose of 36 
> mGy, i.e., that dose which the cerebellum of the partially shielded mice 
> received from stray radiation. 
> I agree that - in my view - Howard Long occasionally is straining the evidence 
> in favour of hormesis - just as you are trying to ignore or depreciate it. This 
> time however I am the one who is guilty of introducing the incriminated word - 
> though I mentioned it only casually at the very fringe of the discussion. 
> Best regards, Rainer 
> Dr. Rainer Facius 
> German Aerospace Center 
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine 
> Linder Hoehe 
> 51147 Koeln 
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150 
> FAX: +49 2203 61970 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag 
> von John Jacobus 
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. August 2008 23:43 
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation 
> I wonder how many others on this list have read the article. I am sure Dr. 
> Long has not. I would be nice to see a discussion of the study as opposed to a 
> summary dismissal as it may go against the belief in hormesis. Is that too 
> much to ask for? 
> +++++++++++++++++++ 
> "Part of human nature resents change, loves equilibrium, while another 
> part welcomes novelty, loves the excitement of disequilibrium. There is no 
> formula for the resolution of this tug-of-war, but it is obvious that absolute 
> surrender to either of them invites disaster." 
> -J. Bartlet Brebner 
> -- John 
> John Jacobus, MS 
> Certified Health Physicist 
> e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com 
> --- On Thu, 8/21/08, Cary Renquist wrote: 
> From: Cary Renquist 
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation 
> To: "NIXON, Grant" , radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008, 1:16 PM 
> The distances involved in this experiment seem too far for diffusion of 
> radicals. 
> What I understand (grok [for the geeks out there]) from the few papers that I 
> have read... 
> Acute "low-level" exposures seem garner signal transduction responses 
> that favor cell death or very basic repair attempts. Acute 
> "high-level" 
> exposures seem to result in signal transduction responses that favor 
> (emergency) repair mechanisms. 
> In this experiment, it seems that the (emergency) repair mechanisms are being 
> triggered in the shielded area -- the repairs are either acting on damage caused 
> by the low-level scatter or the normal damage caused by cellular processes. 
> I see that normal wild-type mice in the experiment did not display any 
> carcinogenic response -- only the patch1 mice. Normal mice did show short term 
> effects that seemed to be evidence for the transmission of the high-exposure 
> response to the shielded areas. 
> C. 
> --- 
> Cary Renquist 
> RSO, Eckert & Ziegler Isotope Products 
> Office: +1 661-309-1033 
> cary.renquist at ezag.com 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of 
> NIXON, Grant 
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 August, 2008 13:09 
> To: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net; ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation 
> To add to Howard's comment: 
> Perhaps the mechanism for the DNA damage to adjoining tissue (the so-called 
> "bystander effect") is nothing more than a propagated free-radical 
> reaction having nothing to do with cell-to-cell communication. The high doses 
> would liberate such large numbers of free-radicals that the affected perimeter 
> of affected tissues would increase on physical grounds alone (diffusion theory 
> coupled with target theory). The "chemical that blocks cell-to-cell 
> communication" may simply be a free-radical scavenger. 
> Grant I. Nixon, Ph.D., P.Phys. 
> Science Specialist (Dosimetry/Physics/Engineering) BEST Theratronics 
> 413 March Road 
> Ottawa, ON K2K 0E9 
> Canada 
> tel. (613) 591-2100 x2869 
> fax. (613) 591-2250 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of 
> HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:36 PM 
> To: ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation 
> So, "high dose radiation - 12,000 times - chest x-ray" affects 
> adjacent tissue? 
> Would other severe injury, like crushed arm, affect the rest of the body? Of 
> course! 
> Why the surprise? 
> Why the false headline that it "Hints at Dangers of Low Dose 
> Radiation"? 
> Hormesis, low dose good where high dose bad, must be taught. 
> We must correct this disinformation by fearmongers to dismantle over-regulation 
> and liberate nuclear power. 
> Howard Long 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list