Cover article, Science, 1915

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

Friends,



Before the data was suppressed in the late 20s/early '30s, there was a

general recognition that low level radiation was beneficial.



For example, Dr. A. Richards, in a cover article in Science, Friday,

September 3, 1915  stated:



"Indeed, numerous cases have been reported where a qualitative difference

results from a slight radiation as contrasted with one of great intensity,

for frequently stimuli which will retard growth if of high degree, will be

found to accelerate it if weak enough. Exposure to rays of great intensity

has been shown to retard or stop growth, differentiation and regeneration...

On the other hand, an exposure of short duration and of slight intensity

will in some cases stimulate growth, and accelerate regeneration, and may

perhaps cause an increase in the rate of cell division."



He also quotes a Gager 1908 review paper on botany that concludes in the

final paragraph: 



"The broadest, and at the same time the most definite generalization

warranted by the work so far done [Ed: mostly 1903-1905] is that the rays of

radium act as a stimulus to metabolism. If the stimulus ranges between

minimum and optimum points, all metabolic activities, whether constructive

or destructive, are accelerated, but if the stimulus increases from the

optimum toward the maximum point it becomes an over-stimulus, and all

metabolic activities are depressed and finally completely inhibited. Beyond

a certain point of over-stimulus recovery is impossible, and death results."



Richards' review recounts some hypotheses by various authors on the

mechanisms of actions of radium and x-rays on cell biology.  One is Packard

where he summarizes:



"Cells contain a great many kinds of enzymes and it has been shown by a

number of investigators that radium rays and x-rays have the property of

modifying the action of some enzymes. Packard concludes that while many

enzymes may be activated, 'the lytic enzymes are more stimulated than those

which play a synthesizing role.' Where a slight radiation results in

acceleration, the synthetic processes may be supposed to be stimulated more

than the destructive activities."



His concluding paragraph includes:



"The facts, as they are presently known in regards to the effects of

radioactivity on living matter, show that life processes are subject to

marked changes under the influence of the radiation, a slight expose being

accelerative in most cases, while a more intense treatment is inhibitive or

destructive."



It seems fair to say that the biological functions haven't changed since

1915. :-)  (As demonstrated by the few, generally unfunded by government,

persons doing credible research from the 1890s to today!)



Regards, Jim Muckerheide

Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at WPI

Radiation, Science, and Health

=============================================





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.



------------------------------