[ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

Fri Feb 15 20:08:13 CST 2013

The article by John Cameron indicates the radiologists had significantly reduced cancer mortality during the period of 0.2R/day dose limit.
British Journal of Radiology (2002) 75, 637-639, Radiation increased the longevity of British radiologists, J R Cameron

Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Medical Physicist, 
Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
Fax:   215 728-4755
E-mail:  Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu

________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Jeremy Nicoll
Sent: Fri 2/15/2013 7:31 PM
To: JERRY CUTTLER; The International RadiationProtection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

The published literature would strongly suggest that limit did not protect radiologists. A key reference would be Warren in JAMA in, I think, 1954. As someone who works with & is married to a radiologist, I find the character assassination quite entertaining. A great deal of harmless entertainment can be found in following the substantial literature on radiologist longevity, especially the repartee in the ensuing correspondence.

Cheers
Jeremy
________________________________
From: JERRY CUTTLER
Sent: 16/02/2013 3:13 a.m.
To: Victor Anderson; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
Cc: 'Payne, Steven S.'; 'Dobrzynski Ludwik'; Jerry Cuttler; 'Miller, Mark L'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

Victor et al.

For "the new radiation safety standard," I recommend reverting to the ICRP standard that was accepted in the early 1930s; i.e. use the concept of a safe tolerance dose of 0.2 Roentgen/day, which is equivalent to about 680 mGy/year.  It provided adequate protection to the radiologists for at least two decades and would still be satisfactory today for radiation workers.  The total-body acute dose limit for radiologists (radiation workers) should be 150 mGy.

There was no scientific justification to change the radiation protection concept in the mid-1950s.  That was done for the political purpose of stopping the development and testing of nuclear weapons.

I volunteer to help solve this problem.

Jerry Cuttler
jerrycuttler at rogers.com

________________________________
 From: Victor Anderson <victor.anderson at frontier.com>
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList' <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "'Miller, Mark L'" <mmiller at sandia.gov>; 'Jerry Cuttler' <jerrycuttler at rogers.com>; 'Dobrzynski Ludwik' <Ludwik.Dobrzynski at ncbj.gov.pl>; "'Payne,Steven S.'" <Steven.Payne at nnsa.doe.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:59:29 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

Good Morning,

The evidence for hormesis is certainly there.  I too believe that LNT
is no longer a viable basis for radiation safety.  Being an ex-regulator,
for me the next big question is placing some numerical values on radiation
safety standards.  Given that X Gy of dose will not cause any harm, should
that be the new radiation safety standard?  This brings as least two
questions to mind: 1) Given biological variability, what is a safe upper limit?
and 2) How does the new standard work for different types of radiation, rates (gy/y,
gy/hr?), mode of delivery?  We also need to look at a new unit as the
Sievert and REM were both pegged to probability of death by cancer.  So,
if say 1 cGy of gamma radiation has no risk of cancer, then the risk based dose
is zero (0 cSv).  Suppose there is a region where there is some protective
benefit mixed with some chance of harm?  A fine kettle of fish. The reason
I ask is that the next step is to petition the NRC for a rule change.  The
bigger question is what kind of rule change?  With this is mind, I would
propose an an hoc committee to work on this problem.  Any takers?  If
so, please e-mail me.

Victor Anderson, CHP

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott, Bobby
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:10 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: Miller, Mark L; Jerry Cuttler; Dobrzynski Ludwik; Payne,Steven S.
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation
Hormesis"

Hi all,

I came across an interesting 7 September 2012 article on the web by
Vincent Giuliano titled "Radiation Hormesis."  The link
for the article
follows:

http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2012/09/07/radiation-hormesis/

I thought some of you may like to know about the article.

Best wishes,

Bobby

B. R. Scott

Senior Scientist

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute

2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE

Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA

Phone: 001-505-348-9470

Fax: 001-505-348-8567

E-mail: bscott at LRRI.org <mailto:bscott at LRRI.org>

*******************************************************************************

This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic
Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to
the named
addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are
not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail
to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in
error and
that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing
in this
communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be
construed as a
legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter
herein.
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such information.