Re: Hormesis and DNA continued

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Eric Goldin wrote:

> Regarding Jim Muckerheide's comments about DNA damage and hormesis.  To
> quote:
> "But radiation makes a minuscule contribution.  There's no unique
> contribution from a damage from radiation."

> These comments don't address multiply damaged sites (MDS) for which
> ionizing radiation is believed to be distinct from those lesions caused by
> oxidative metabolism.  Dr. John Ward at UCSD has published many papers
> studying MDS's and the fact that radiation-induced DNA lesions are not the
> same as simple metabolic DNA lesions.

This isn't right.  Ward has been involved in an effort the last two years
that refutes this. He's desperate to defend such a position, but he hasn't
been able to.  All of his comments have been adopted and resolved.
Hopefully a paper will be submitted within the next few weeks.  It's an open
question whether Ward will continue to be an author, or withdraw to maintain
his relationship with the funding agencies.

> Moreover, if, as you claim, the effects on DNA are no different from metabolic
> oxidative effects such that low dose radiation (LDR) effects are simply buried
> in the ocean of normal metabolic processes, then how can you explain that
> there could be any beneficial effect from LDR?

Why do you think "DNA damage" has anything to do with beneficial effects?
(You could read the comments and the refs.)

> How can you induce immunological responses if the radiation is indistinct from
> metabolism.  You can't have your cake and....

I didn't say that.  I said DNA damage is indistinct; and has nothing to do
with causing cancer.  I also said what is different biologically.  Maybe you
could respond to that instead.

> Don't disposition the basic research so lightly because
> epidemiological studies aren't going to answer the basic biology questions.

What are you talking about? Nobody said anything about epidemiology.  Not
even the people who have responded.  I only addressed biology research -
just not the irrelevant DNA damage mechanics which do not contribute to
causing cancer.  If you read the comments before responding it will help.

> There just isn't the sensitivity and there are too many confounding
> factors.

Patently untrue. Read the refs (many more if you want them - No? )

> What we need is more basic radiation biology research

Have all we need. Just being ignored.

>and less political maneuvering.

Tell NCRP/ICRP, EPA/DOE.

> As Bjorn clearly put it, the answers aren't in yet.  And those researchers who
> continue to seek answers aren't part of some grand conspiracy to cover up
> beneficial effects (notwithstanding the X-files).

Read the literature; listen to the researchers who aren't on the EPA/DOE
etc. payroll.

> Note that basic research is conducted primarily by university staff/faculty
> and is not influenced by NCRP/ICRP/BEIR, etc.

Where do you live?  Who are NCRP/ICRP/BEIR, etc. but the faculty funded by
the agencies and directed by the "Radiation Research Study Group at NIH and
EPA/DOE etc. funding.  How do they get funds, and appointments to prominent
committees? Why are the highly credible science critics NOT funded and on
prominent committees?

When a senior official at NCI was asked to pursue/confirm clear results of
beneficial effects, he said, quote: "That's not how we get our researchers
tenure."  

In 1978,  Norm Frigerio said to me: "We no longer get the best and brightest
into radiobiology. They see how the funding is awarded and decide to find
more honorable and useful careers. We have people who know how to get
funding."

> Lastly, please remember LNT isn't (or shouldn't be anyway) used for risk
> assessment but for development of standards that ensure that risks are
> acceptably low (if not yet proven zero).

This is too far out :-)

> So the problem in the US isn't that there is a cover-up of radiation's
> beneficial effects, but that the decisionmakers won't stand up to a very small
> vocal group who seek a "risk-free" environment, whatever that might be.

So,  you have worked closely with the people who tell you this?  Have you
asked the people who have had their work and careers cut off?  On projects,
and whole programs, terminated?  Radium dial painters? Norm Frigerio's AEC
study of the US background radiation vs. health effects?  Shipyard workers
study?  IARC study?  Talked to many people that have experienced suppression
of the data?  at DOE etc.?   Charlie Willis' comments on his experience at
Oak ridge in 1958?  My initial experience was in 1973.  After a meeting with
senior AEC and ORNL officials on Appendix I,  there was an informal
discussion about how people who wanted to pursue beneficial effects were
denied funding, and other stories.

You have to accept that such experience is not going to be much affected by
your presumptions about how science is done and policy is made on the LNT.
Perhaps reading the information provided by many others.  See, e.g.:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-3/1/131list.html
 or to any of the sections at the table of contents.

Ed Calabrese and Linda Baldwin have written about how extensive beneficial
effects evidence was ignored.  In the radiation area, even in NAS reports
written by scientists whose own work, and that of mentors and colleagues,
had demonstrated beneficial responses after FDA got regulatory control of
radiation.  (After all, the medical and pharmaceutical industries didn't
need people using radiation sources on their own, when med authorities and
pill makers needed the income :-)   See:
http://www.belleonline.com/home82.html
 
> Obviously, only my opinion.
> Eric Goldin, CHP
> <goldinem@songs.sce.com>

And mine. :-)  Thanks, Eric

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

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