Re: Hormesis?

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Chris, Bernie, Group,
The premise of DNA "damage" as a mechanism isn't valid.
 
We know the mechanisms well enough to know that the concept of "damage" or
detriment at low doses is invalid.  The idea that a ray/particle can
initiate a cancer is invalid.  It is based on the "model" that the radiation
can, either directly or more likely indirectly through the creation of
radicals, cause a break to DNA, and that "damage" can leave a cell
vulnerable to non-repair and non-removal to cause a cancer some time later
(measured in years).

However, DNA "breakage" occurs from normal metabolic and heat processes at
rates that are millions of times greater than the effect of background
radiation (say 1 mSv/yr, ignoring the nonsense about radon lung-dose
equivalence).  

DNA repair half-times are in the order of 20-45 minutes.  At any given time
in any cell the number of DNA damage events are, conservatively, at least in
the range of 30,000, with periods after taking in food, especially hot
foods/drinks, exercise, etc., that this is increased substantially (an order
of magnitude?)  See, e.g., the summary of the literature by Myron Pollycove
and Ludwig Feinendegen (both Nuclear Medicine MDs with this case accepted
for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine in a 2-part paper (May
and June?) from our Nov 2000 Symposium in Washington on the Medical Benefits
of Low Dose Radiation:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Docs/Pollycove2000_Symp_on_Med_Ben.htm

See also Pollycove's 1998 paper in Ottawa at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/MP98_Ottawa.html

You can see other papers from the Nov Symposium at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Docs/RSHSympNov00/index.htm

Cancer is NOT a stochastic process based on cell damage. Cancer requires a
series of failures in the normal controls systems.  It is an epigenetic
process.  In addition to the above presentations, review the "Tutorial" by
Ron Mitchel and Doug Boreham, molecular biologists at the AECL Chalk River
laboratories, (being taken over by Health Canada, the equivalent of our NIH
plus other health functions, e.g., CDC, NIOSH, etc.) at the Symposium, as
presented also as a keynote at IRPA-10 in Hiroshima in May,  and as a
"Tutorial" session.  He was also an invited presented to our Symposium in
Tokyo in 1997:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/ICONE7-Tokyo99/tokyo99.html

On the Nov Symposium page, see also Shu-Zheng Liu's paper, and the Abstracts
from the research at his molecular biology laboratory program at Norman
Bethune University School of Medical Sciences in Changchung China. These
results make clear that the molecular responses to LDR are stimulatory to
effects that are directly related to DNA damage repair and removal (enzymes,
immune functions, that also control the cell cycle arrest to delay the cell
cycle to achieve repair, and apoptosis,) as well as functions that affect
hormonal and physiological effects.  Such stimulation is readily shown, in
immunologically "whole" organisms (as opposed to cell lines in culture), to
prevent and successfully treat cancers, treat infections and inflammations,
some genetic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension, and some
physiological conditions.

See the paper by Dr. Hattori on research in Japan on such health benefits.
The successful treatment of cancer was done by Dr. Sakamoto, a radiation
oncologist, who also, after his retirement was diagnosed with advanced colon
cancer, and after removal of the primary mass, undertook his own LDR series
(15 cGy at a moderate dose rate, 1 minute+, 3 times/week for 5 weeks, 150
cGy) to boost his immune system to eliminate the cancer.  He did a second
series 10 months later despite the lack of indication of cancer recurrence.
It's about 3 years later and he is more vital than before (but gaining
weight :-)  (Note: This is at the same time that Katie Couric was losing her
husband to colon cancer.)  The radiation protection policy establishment in
Japan, as in the US and Europe, have prevented this application of LDR.
Research funds were private, without gov't support, and results largely
ignored, even though such successful work for non-Hodgkins lymphoma was done
at Harvard in the 1970s.

If you believe the LNT, or even the idea that there is a detriment at low
doses, you are simply conforming to the misrepresentation of the nature of
the biological response to LDR promulgated by the rad protectionists that
are committed to feathering their own nests on behalf of the massive funding
of regulatory and clean-up programs. You are also constraining the
application of radiation technologies!

See also recent papers (2000) by Safwat on applying LDR to successfully
treat lymphoma (since the 1920s) in Radiotherapy Oncology:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=10869748&dopt=Abstract
 and in Radiation Research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=10790282&dopt=Abstract

This doesn't address why a trivial contribution to DNA damage by LDR can
cause substantial beneficial effects.  That must be later, but suffice to
say that the measure of "effect" has nothing to do with DNA damage.  At
higher doses, that do cause cancer, the DNA damage level is still trivial.
But the effect on the immune system and related processes is to overwhelm,
instead of stimulate, responses, leaving unrepaired damage, including the
failure to remove damage, as Dr. Liu shows, along with showing the positive
effects from LDR that is initiated initiated through the localized cascade
of electrons (that are essential for cells/biology to function).  As you
will recall, Charlie Willis of the NRC stated on the March 26, 1996 NRC
Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee transcript, talking about research at Oak Ridge
using potassium from which the K-40 had been removed in the calutrons: "The
cells looked ok, but they didn't function"  and that the commitment to the
LNT is why the research didn't get reported - this was in 1958, and DOE
hasn't changed since, including the "low dose research" they are doing
today.  See also the very brief abstracts by Alexander Kuzin (who passed
away last year):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=10732224&dopt=Abstract
 and with Surkenova:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=10347602&dopt=Abstract
 and with others:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=9599615&dopt=Abstract
 
Regards, Jim
Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at WPI
Radiation, Science, and Health
muckerheide@mediaone.net
=============================================

> From: "Christoph Hofmeyr" <Christoph_Hofmeyr@nnr.co.za>
> Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:46:16 -0600 (CST)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Hormesis?
> 
> 
> Radsafers,
> Thanks for several comments to my query, implying the same, namely
> simultaneous detrimental as well as beneficial effects, obviously as a
> function of dose.  I think an important and valid question is whether the
> two effects are coupled or uncoupled.  Bernie seems to imply that the two
> are coupled and the benefit will therefore cancel the detriment (at least
> in a certain dose range).  However, should the effects be weakly- or
> un-coupled, the detriment can persist with a certain probability and result
> in a 'stochastic' effect in due course.   Do we understand the mechanisms
> well enough to decide?  My own thoughts.
> Chris Hofmeyr
> chofmeyr@nnr.co.za
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Bernard L Cohen  
> <blc+@pitt.edu>           To:     Multiple recipients of list
> Sent by:                  <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> radsafe@romulus.eh        cc:     (bcc: Christoph Hofmeyr/CNS1)
> s.uiuc.edu                Subject:     Re: Hormesis?
> 
> 
> 2001/02/09 17:01 
> Please respond to
> radsafe          
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Christoph Hofmeyr wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Radsafers,
>> Forgive my bit of agitation/frustration/confusion.  On the one hand we
> have
>> opinions, based on certain observations, and stated forcefully, that
>> radiation (quite a bit) is potentially good for you, and on the other
> hand
>> the assertion, based on other observations, that one gamma-photon or
> alpha
>> may cause cancer.  Where on earth does the truth lie?
> 
> --There is no inconsistency in these two statements. One
> particle
> of radiation *may* initiate a cancer, but it also *does* stimulate
> production of repair enzymes, stimulate the immune system, etc which may
> protect against a cancer that was caused by something else. These two
> effects have to be added to determine the result.
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html