Re: Experimental Proof of Hormesis

["Michael Kay" <makay43@home.com>]

Mike,

The point you refer to is the Zero Equivalence Point (ZEP). The curve is
actually an inverted "U". At present the left hand upwards leg starts at
zero because it hasn't been proven that there is a deficiency syndrome below
a certain (probably slightly above today's background) dose. The right hand
leg comes back down to zero effect at the point where the dose is large
enough to overcome the hormetic effect of smaller doses. From then on, the
negative effects are expressed and the leg continues down below the zero
effect horizontal line.

I do not think that the workers you have mentioned will necessarily be
exposed to a lower dose. For example, a lot of control towers are cement
structures (K-40 and other Naturally occurring radioactive materials), and
some are even faced with granite. Are there any submariners today not on
nuclear powered subs?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Malaxos" <mike@radiationsafety.com.au>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Experimental Proof of Hormesis


> I have been following the thread on Hormesis for some time and  have some
> difficulty in understanding  the reluctance to accept that radiation may
> cause simultaneous positive and detrimental effects.
>
> TD Luckey provided a great deal of data much of which was presented at the
> ?? Oakford conference around 1986.
>
> The hypothesis that any nuclear event in a cell could trigger the
> development of cancer seems scientifically valid. When one considers that
> every cell in the body may be ionised every week by background radiation
the
> risk of developing cancer from one event approaches zero.
>
> It also seems logical that the higher the dose rate, the greater the
number
> of "hits" and the greater the risk of developing cancer.
> If the immune system is stimulated by low levels of radiation is it not
> reasonable to assume that in real "dirty" environments the activated
immune
> system provides a greater level of protection from other insults such as
> viruses or bacteria not evident in  vitro studies.  In the dirty
environment
> there must be some point where the detriment caused by the radiation
offsets
> the additional protection provided by the stimulated immune system
producing
> the "U" shaped curve and the second zero point
> (?Zip Point) referred to by Luckey. Would this curve be observed under
> sterile laboratory conditions.  Luckey complained that the insulted added
to
> a culture to validate his hypothesis was more than fifty time the lethal
> dose therefore guaranteeing a negative result.
>
> What studies been carried out with those working in very low background
> areas such as sailors and submariners. Or possibly air traffic controllers
> working in low background elevated areas.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike Malaxos.
> Radiation Safety Services
> Mike@radiationsafety.com.au
> www.radiationsafety.com.au
> 69 Robinson Avenue Belmont Western Australia 6104
> Phone 61 (0)8 94750011 FAX  61 (0)8 94750011
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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