RE: Radiation hypersensitivity

["Dov Brickner" <brickner@IN.ZAHAV.NET.IL>]

Dear Radsafers

Allergy and hypersensitivity are medical terms , that refer to disordes of

the immune system, characterized by overactivity of the immune system .  It

is very inaccurate to use those terms in the context of ionizing radiation

because IR dose right the opposite and supress the activity of the immune

system.

therefore the berrylium example is not in place - it is a hypersensitivity

reaction of the immune system.

 The correct term is RADIOSENSITIVITY, and the Ataxia Telangiectasia example

is the correct one, because the mechanism of radioseneitivity in this case

is a defect of the DNA repair mechanism , the critical step in the

development of radiation injury and radiation (ionizing) carcinogenesis.

Yet, those defects, like AT  gene, are relatively rare, and such rare

abnormalities can explain only a small fraction of the excess cancer due to

low-level ionizing radiation.

The question of "safe" levels (perhaps even beneficial levels) of ionizing

radiation exposure , will be answered by research of the molecular

mechanisms of radiation injury and carcinogenicity. in the meantime we are

left with the uncertainties of epidemiological research. So let's keep the

speculations on small fire... and correct scientific terms...

 Dov (Dubi) Brickner  M.D.

Beer Sheva , ISRAEL



> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen

> 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.