Re: Contributions to the historical record

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Hi Bjorn, Group,

Bjorn Cedervall wrote:
> 
> >From: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>
> >Subject: Re: Contributions to the historical record
> >Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:07:42 -0500 (CDT)
> >
> > > Jim, I don't mind the references you are giving
> >
> >That's a great relief. Have you read them? I don't see their 
> >historical context having a relationship to your "but" below:
> 
> I read the papers by Ehrenberg et al. (around 1961-1963) in 1975. And I have

Again, these refs do not relate to the papers on the historical data. These
address the extent of hormesis that was in the science literature, and how/why
it was erroneously dismissed in considering science and public policies.

Otherwise I assume the lack of response to this and the biology/medicine data
has rejected the premise that LDR can cause cancer, and in fact that the
biological responses can only potentially be beneficial, including consistency
with the role of stimulating immune responses that are being applied in
various modalities to successfully treat cancer.

Thanks.

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

> seen some of the works by P. Lambin and others (and we even have a few works
> together on DSB rejoining in human colorectal cell lines). The DNA is the
> same but the cellular response differs in many ways. The papers by Ehrenberg
> et al. were about mutations. I have not read the papers you mention. I only
> have a few points: First, there seems to be a strong correlation between
> cell killing and chromosomal aberrations (which in turn arise from DSBs).
> Second, that before going from observation to interpretation it may be good
> to also consider these other findings that go in the "opposite" direction. I
> just want to see a consistent theory.
> 
> There are sometimes _many_ relevance problems with cell culture experiments:
> The cells are disturbed, the atmosphere may be/is different, extracellular
> agents (biomolecules, proteins...) are missing, contact inhibition is often
> lacking or different in character, blast cells (like lymphocytes in culture)
> have by definition a disturbed p53 function (to make them divide) - usually
> a state achieved by a virus type of transformation. Many cells are
> radiolabeled in culture and there are other things that may happen.
> There are also differences between species, between individuals of the same
> species, and between tissues of the same individual.
> 
> I will check out the references given (by Jim) later on. Right now I have to
> focus on 5-6 grant applications over the next weeks and then some vacation
> in Calif. (SJ/SF area).
> 
> It may be mentioned that about 75% of the published DSB data (from the PFGE
> method) have been based on the wrong mathematical function (DNA mass instead
> of DNA DSBs) - formally a violation of the chain rule for derivatives - one
> of these examples can be found in Science. Most of these DSB studies concern
> radiosensitivity aspects.
> 
> My own thoughts only,
> 
> Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html