[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hormesis?
Why bother. You didn't read the last refs you requested. And Bernie made
clear that's not what he's saying. (And why do you assume alpha rad to the
lung is the important parameter?)
Anyway, for a general perspective, see the following paper by Tony Brooks
and Marv Frazier, denizens of the establishment which will be more to your
liking :-)
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-2/6/3/Rev%202%201263br&fr93.html
Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
==========================
> From: "Harry Hinks" <harryhinks@hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:47:31 -0600 (CST)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Hormesis?
>
> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html