Re: Hormesis?

["Harry Hinks" <harryhinks@hotmail.com>]

Mr. Muckerheide,

I am still looking for a paper that shows alpha particle radiation to the 
lung is beneficial.  Isn't that what Dr. Cohen is saying?

Harry Hinks
harryhinks@hotmail.com


>From: Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>
>Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: Hormesis?
>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:50:46 -0600 (CST)
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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