RE: Radiation hypersensitivity

["Christoph Hofmeyr" <chofmeyr@nnr.co.za>]

Jerry, Radsafers,

Some years ago I heard a lecture by a doctor who was studying genetic

aspects of disease.  Spectacular examples were individuals that lacked

certain genes to metabolise cholesterol, which is a normal part of the

metabolic process.  These unfortunates exhibited deposition of

cholesterol under the skin between their fingers, around the eye

diaphragm, etc., while still in their teens and suffered heart attacks

before the age of 20.  In the lecture he pointed out that a certain

significant percentage of the population has deficient cellular and DNA

repair mechanisms, and such individuals tend to be hyper-sensitive to

e.g. chemical insults.  They could, for instance, not stand smoke, much

less smoke tobacco themselves. Your example of the beryllium sensitivity

is a serious expression of this phenomenon.  Apparently, the population

exhibits a distribution: at the other end of the scale one finds persons

with an enhanced capacity for DNA repair.  I have often wondered whether

these differences would also reflect in susceptibility to radiation

damage consequences.  One should consider whether the "allergy" to which

Dr Becker refers, correlates with a weak or a strong response.  

Own musings.

Chris Hofmeyr

chofmeyr@nnr.co.za



-----Original Message-----

From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET]

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 11:23 PM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu

Subject: Radiation hypersensitivity





From: Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker <Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker@t-online.de>

 >We should perhaps think a little about this question of "radiation

>allergy"

> and how to deal with it, before it is (technically and legally)

feasible

to

> do large-scale genetic screening, e.g. of radiation workers.

Obviously,

>the

> percentage must be small, but does any of you have good data or

arguments?



     I think  the possibility that some individuals may be

hypersensitive to

radiation deserves serious consideration. A good analogy to this

situation

can be found in the field of Industrial Hygiene as pertains to Beryllium

exposure. From past observations it is apparent that the most workers

who

have experienced  high levels of exposure exhibit no harmful effects,

while

a certain few show very serious effects and death from even the

slightest

exposure.

    Given a situation of this nature, how should we determine what a

"safe"

exposure level should be?

>From a societal standpoint, is it in the best interests of public health

to

protect the most sensitive person, or what? Considering that some people

may

be sensitive (allergic) to just about anything, to what extent should we

go

to: (a) find such people and isolate them from possible exposure, or (b)

restrict or eliminate the offending agent from use? One problem I

envision

assuming that some day  we could identify radio-hypersensitive

individuals,

should we restrict their travel to high background radiation areas?

[jjcohen@prodigy.net]





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

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.



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

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.