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

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

If that is the study I am thinking of, the sacrificed the mice after
some fairly short length of time and looked for cancer.  The study I
would like to see would wait until the subjects died on their own (or
were euthanized because they were in obvious terminal distress).  If you
want to demonstrate hormesis in the lab (with animals), I believe you
have to let the test run to its conclusion, and then be able to show a
dose/response curve.  

Another experiment that would, I believe, be entertaining in the amount
of consternation it would cause, would be to ask a source of certified
organic seed to provide seeds that would be split into a number of
separate lots, irradiate some at different but fairly low doses, and
provide the seed (in a blind study, of course) to organic growers to
grow under controlled conditions.  I suspect the results would not be in
keeping with preconceptions the organic community holds.  It would be
amusing to watch the flailing about. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Long
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:47 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: pollycove at att.net
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation
Hormesis"

Pollycove and Feinendigan did similar studies on mice. 
I am looking at the handout given by Pollycove at DDP 5-10 years ago,
titled.
(Seal of Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
Epidemiology, Molecular Biology, and the Demise of the Linear
No-Threshold
(LNT) Hypothesis
Myron Pollycove MD Visiting Medical Fellow US NRC 

I just spoke with Myron and forward this to him.
He says he is loaded with ammunition for you all.

Howard Long


On Jan 30, 2013, at 9:42 AM, "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)"
<Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:

> I suspect that lit searches and cell studies and such will never be 
> convincing.  What might be more convincing would be a double-blind (or

> even triple-blind?) animal study that shares some features with your 
> beagle study (though I would use rats, as they are cheaper, don't live

> as long, and cause less hate and discontent when you experiment on 
> them).
> 
> I would arrange the study along the following lines:
> 
> 1.  Obtain a cohort of standard rats, genetically identical if 
> possible, and similar age.  Provide identifiers, such as tattooed
numbers.
> 2.  Insert some sort of dosimeter chip under the skin.  It should be 
> designed to last the lifetime of the rat.
> 3.  Provide researchers in various locations with identical habitats 
> for the rats.  The habitats should have a way of randomly exposing the

> rats to ionizing radiation.  I would use x-rays, but that isn't 
> particularly important, as long as cumulative dose is fairly low and 
> there is a good gradient in the field.
> 4.  Put rats in the habitat, tend them normally, irradiate them a 
> little, and let them live out their lives.  Record when they die, 
> determine the cause, and send the chips off to be read.
> 5.  After the lot of them are dead, compare dose with lifespan and 
> cause of death.
> 
> I don't know what the results of such a study would be, but it would 
> either clear the waters, or muddy them in a very definitive way.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Otto G. 
> Raabe
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:24 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
> List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation 
> Hormesis"
> 
> So, now how do we convince EPA that 15 mrem per year (the expensive 
> super fund cleanup standard) is not hazardous?
> 
> Otto
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> University of California
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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