Re: [rad-sci-l] RE: Radiation hypersensitivity

["Jack Earley" <jearley@enercon.com>]

Dov Brickner wrote:



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

radiation

because IR does the opposite and suppresses the activity of the immune

system.>>



One of the links Jim sent you was to Don Luckey's hormesis references, which

show stimulation of the immune system, not suppression.





Jack Earley

Radiological Engineer



Enercon Services, Inc.

6525 N. Meridian, Suite 503

OKC, OK  73116

phone: 405-722-7693

fax:       405-722-7694

jearley@enercon.com



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

This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Enercon Services, Inc.

proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to

copyright belonging to Enercon Services, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely

for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  If you

are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that

any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the

contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be

unlawful.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the

sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this

e-mail and any printout.

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

From: "Dov Brickner" <brickner@in.zahav.net.il>

To: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>;

<rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu>

Sent: October 11, 2001 7:16 p.m.

Subject: [rad-sci-l] RE: Radiation hypersensitivity





> 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.

> >

> >

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> rad-sci-l mailing list

> rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu

> http://ans.ep.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-sci-l

>



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

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.