Re: Son of ALARA! PART II

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Group,

Hit by the radsafe from bug: I'll continue rather than resend:

>From Japan (not part of our group) a rather more direct statement:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9486621&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

and Dr. Hashimoto using low-dose tritium in rats:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10360792&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

See also from work in Japan, in "Anticancer Research":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10697548&dopt=Abstract

And from Japan:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10528927&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

You can see an overview of some of the research results in Japan at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/tokyo99/SH99-tokyo.html

and Dr. Sakamoto's brief presentation form at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/tokyo99/KS99-tokyo.html
[You can 'click' on the "Tokyo 1999" navigation link at the top to see all
these brief papers.]

>From Belgium, Nucl Med, adaptive response in I-131 patients:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10647600&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Note: "CONCLUSION: The iodine treatment can act as an in vivo adaptation dose
and can induce an adaptive response that is observed by a decrease of the
cytogenetic damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes after in vitro irradiation
as a challenge dose."

>From another abstract, Dr. Eduard Azzam (now at Harvard with Jack Little) et
al. report (1996) that: "A single exposure of quiescent C3H 10T1/2 cells to a
dose of 0.1, 1.0 or 10 cGy followed by a 24-h incubation reduced the risk of
neoplastic transformation from the spontaneous level to a rate three- to
four-fold below that level. If similar processes are induced in human cells, a
single low dose at background or occupational exposure levels may reduce
rather than increase cancer risk, a conclusion inconsistent with the linear
no-threshold model of cancer risk from radiation."
Of course you should check th full Abstract:  :-)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8927708&dopt=Abstract

Note the response to laser light, and the cell-cycle checkpoint delay induced
by enzymes that are stimulated by LDR:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10526215&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

Now, if you really want to get carried away, Jim Trosko has an extensive
review of gap-junction intercellular communication at:
http://www.bioscience.org/1998/v3/d/trosko/list.htm
NOTE: That Dr. Trosko was RERF Director of Research, and wrote various papers
and made presentations on, "CAN Radiation Cause Cancer?" because cancer is an
EPIGENETIC process, and it is NOT likely that DNA damage OR radiation causes
cancer, and is highly likely that cancer is NOT stochastic AT ALL, based on
the underlying biological processes!]


Of course, separate from the "explanatory" results, there are more simple and
blunt results :-)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=3423231&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

>From China:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10696785&dopt=Abstract

and from Russia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=10576060&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
[Note: No dose rate info. Based on Sakamoto and others, 2 10-15 cGy doses, 2-3
days apart, would have an stimulatory response (that "eats" cancer
cells/metastases! :-)

E.g., Dr. Sakamoto's large colon tumor was removed, plus a few local small
tumors, but not distal tumors and metastases. Following his LDR treatment, (2
x-rays/week, 5 weeks, 150 cGy) there was no indication of cancer; 10 months
later he did it again as a "booster" to make sure he got it all - now his
problem is feeling so much more invigorated that he's putting on too much
weight!? :-) 

There has been some work where the stimulated immune system response to cancer
has shown the destruction of a tumor in "real time" watching both cell
adhesion break down and cells die. (See, e.g., the rate at which some large
tumors, like the nasal tumors in Takai's paper, disappear.)

Dr. Sakamoto's first patient, about 1987, was sent to him for palliative
radiation therapy - he's a rad oncologist - because her cancer too advanced,
throughout her colon and beyond (just to reduce pain while waiting to die in a
couple of months). She lived quite a while (2 years?), comfortably. When she
died, an autopsy found NO cancer, not even cancer cells. But her colon had
been damaged by the high dose treatments and an obstruction (septicemia?)
caused her death. 

The statement from Japan, like the U.S.:  'Clinical research funds are not
available because gov't rad research is controlled by rad protection interests
- subservient to ICRP.'

But there's $$ for high-dose therapy research, e.g., Takai and Sakamoto:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9558826&dopt=Abstract
[Do you think they'd be doing this instead of LDR to cure cancer!?]

Sakamoto's now retired. No one's treating patients in a formal way. How many
people are dead unnecessarily? (Luckey estimates 200,000 premature cancer
deaths/yr in the US alone.)  Who's going to indict the ICRP/NCRP?

Dr. Sakamoto pub'd a 1997 paper that I can provide to anyone who wants it.

But we did get Sakamoto's treatment as I reported on the list previously for a
lymphoma patient, with good success - equivalent to 5-6 months of debilitating
chemotherapy, by refusing another chemo treatment, and replacing it with 2
x-rays/week-5 weeks (~ 1 minute each and feel better in the process!) last
Sept/Oct. He's now going for a follow-up treatment. He was with us in
Baltimore at the Int'l Conf on Nuclear Engrg last week. His Dr. is very
enthusiastic. Note that this was previously successfully done at Harvard, with
papers in 1976 and 1979 (want refs?) But research funds were going to the
'great' (high cost) chemo promise; and high-dose rad.

Dozens of hospitals wouldn't consider treating him; 9 that did consider it,
eventually refused. But one did after about 10 months of searching the
country. 

His chemo Dr. dumped him as a patient, after cooperating in the first couple
of follow-up blood tests (those after the 5 weeks of weekly tests during the
treatment) and finding better results than after 6 months of chemo. Capt.
Bauser refers to the chemo Dr.'s operation as "a highly profitable chemo 'pump
house' of patients being run through the mill. Successful LDR treatment is a
threat to that operation."]

I'm sorry I don't have time to put together more and better sources for you,
there are 100s, but you get the idea. 

Our premise has been that our various responsible organizations, Societies,
Industry, Government, etc., would undertake the effort to honestly assess and
validate the extensive data that clearly contradicts the LNT, and is actively
ignored by the policy establishment. That seems not to be the case. We hope
that Senator Domenici's initiative after DOE's failure and NCRP's SC1-6 draft
report, and NRC's failure to pursue its own inquiry into the NCRP data, will
be a significant contribution to bringing this situation into the light. If
not, ICRP/NCRP rigidity only makes the target easier and the ultimate
consequences greater.

We appreciate the many of you who have supported addressing the science
instead of simply fostering radiophobia, publicly and privately. In the next
few months greater efforts will be needed. Let me know if you would like to
help.

Regards, Jim
Radiation, Science, and Health
muckerheide@mediaone.net
==============================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html