[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Howard, Group,

<NOTE: Just found this seems not to have been sent from here. Apologies if

this is a duplicate.>



> PS Jim and other Radsafers,

> "But, more importantly -", [would chest exposure give hormesis for breast

> and bronchi of whole body exposure]?

> I don't know. Does anyone have definitive reference?

>

> I've been trying to make the experiment ("clinical trial") as close as

> possible to practical clinical application and acceptable to the volunteer

> subjucts. 

> Something that looks like just a prolonged chest x-ray might also get

> through FDA and regulatory ALARA easier.

> 

> Howard Long



There are a substantial number of studies, and of course even more specific

applications of LDR to treat cancers, infections, etc.

Your fellow physicians that have engaged in some of these practices, include

a very large clinical trial now going on in Europe, would provide a more

comprehensive background on this, going back for decades.



In general, from the papers I've read, most treatments are characterized as

Half-Body, or Whole-Body Irradiation (HBI and WBI).  The target is, of

course, the immune system and other defense mechanisms that have a

combination of general response to  exposures plus some responses to local

LDR. 



Hopefully the web site (cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/) will be back up tomorrow where

there are a few refs, but let me know if you want to talk to other

physicians (or they may contact you :-)  Also, you can do a PubMed search

that will identify dozens of studies going back to the '70s (and searches on

other databases that go back further :-).



Regards, Jim

===========

 

> hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net wrote:

> 

>> Dear Jim and Other Radsafers,

>> Yes, further exploration of HoPoCoBaL (Hormesis Prevention of Cancer of

>> Breast and

>> Lungs) seems justified by findinds so far. Those dozen papers you mention, I

>> would

>> appreciate. I've finally ordered Luckey's book. I'll be reviewing Doctors for

>> Disaster Preparedness presentations by Luckey, Pollycove, and Bernie Cohen

>> (with

>> comments by Teller, Art Robinson and others) on cheap CD Roms available from

>> www.oism.org. Some of you may also want those CDRoms.

>> 

>> Men only rarely have breast cancer (I have removed one) so the power to

>> detect

>> differences would take more subjects and time with men

>> 

>> Age 60-69 would have more cancers, but work  would be dictated by Medicare,

>> unlike

>> age 50-59. Helping patients, not politicians or HMO managers, is my oath and

>> loyalty.

>> 

>> Keep the ideas coming. Does anyone know of a mammography and/or CT operator

>> desirous

>> of setting up a center? An hour a year at 4 stations, 15 minutes each, should

>> make

>> it easy to attract 8,000 volunteer participants, when we collate data on

>> animal

>> studies, humanl exposures, etc.

>> 

>> Then comes the hard part. Regulators keep their jobs by deeming individuals

>> unable

>> to choose wisely for themselves. Would choice of sun exposure and food be

>> good

>> analogy - liberty vs ALARA type "security"?

>> 

>> Howard Long

>> 

>> Lynn Palmatier wrote:

>> 

>>> Howard, Friends,

>>> 

>>> It seems I missed responding to this.

>>> 

>>> Your proposal is good.  Straight to clinical trial.  I see you mean real

>>> medical research! This is easily justified by previous animal studies and

>>> human LDR applications.

>>> 

>>> My inquiries on your proposal would be to evaluate: the option of selecting

>>> 60-69 instead, and to include men.

>>> 

>>> But more importantly, the exposure would likely be half-body (if not

>>> full-body) since we're not trying to expose the lung or breast.  As shown in

>>> animal and some human studies, effective cancer suppression by stimulating

>>> the immune system makes the important organs, in order, the spleen, thymus,

>>> Peyer's patches, and perhaps large bone for marrow to stimulate immature

>>> thymocytes.

>>> 

>>> The animal and human studies that have been successful in regressing tumors

>>> have had somewhat higher doses, especially in Makinodan's lab experiments,

>>> with Jill James and others; and in the human work in Japan, and before that,

>>> in the '70s at Harvard. Safwat wrote two papers last year (one in Rad

>>> Research, the other in a Rad Oncology journal) on the science and results.

>>> 

>>> If you want to pursue this, we can provide a few dozen key papers, plus many

>>> dozens that would be relevant.

>>> 

>>> Regards, Jim Muckerheide

>>> 

>>>> Dear Jim and other Radsafers,

>>>> "Definitive experiments? "

>>>> 

>>>> 1, A prospective study has rules set before the data or even its occurrence

>>>> to

>>>> avoid selection.

>>>> I suggest statistical analysis by simple chi square - cancers detected (in

>>>> 10

>>>> rem

>>>> yearly to chest of women smokers age 50-59), vs placebo  .

>>>> 2, Double blind protocol has neither subject or examiner knowing which had

>>>> received

>>>> the placebo or the treatment. Carefully disguised filters "A" and "B" might

>>>> do

>>>> this

>>>> - one blocking the exposure, the other having a central hole in a lead

>>>> plate,

>>>> instead of balancing holes. Only the referee should know which until enough

>>>> cases

>>>> are diagnosed to declare.

>>>> 3, Reproducable experiments would have others eager and easily able to do

>>>> the

>>>> same,

>>>> with many wanting the risk reduction.

>>>> 4. If more cancers were appearing in the treated than placebo group, the

>>>> referee

>>>> would stop the experiment, and unmask it. Hormesis could be disproven for

>>>> this

>>>> setting.

>>>> 

>>>> To me, that would seem to be a credible experiment - proof to convince the

>>>> most

>>>> dubious.

>>>> 

>>>> I believe a lot of health physicists will be hired to set up, monitor and

>>>> operate

>>>> hundreds of hormesis sites in the USA, instead of monitoring ALARA in very

>>>> low

>>>> dose

>>>> sites. More fun.

>>>> 

>>>> Howard Long

>>>> 

>>>> Muckerheide wrote:

>>>> 

>>>>> Howard, All,

>>>>> 

>>>>> What do you consider as possible credible "definitive experiments?"

>>>>> 

>>>>> Regards, Jim

>>>>> ===========

>>>>> 

>>>>>> Dear Ted and other Radsafers,

>>>>>> I agree that the evidence for hormesis is great.

>>>>>> However, as Jane Orient noted "There has not been a definitive

>>>>>> experiment."

>>>>>> (approx)

>>>>>> 

>>>>>> I believe that to stop the wasteful excess precautions of the

>>>>>> "precautionary

>>>>>> principle" used by the enviros, we'll need a reproducable, prospective

>>>>>> double

>>>>>> blind experiment, directly applicable to the use - such as this

>>>>>> "HoPoCoBaL"

>>>>>> (Hormesis Prevention of Cancer of Breast and Lung)

>>>>>> 

>>>>>> Howard Long

>>>>>> 

>>>>>> Ted Rockwell wrote:

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>>> This hormesis demonstration proposal...

>>>>>>> 

>>>>>>> It's good to have still further proposals to demonstrate hormesis.  But

>>>>>>> until we can get people to honestly evaluate the data that already

>>>>>>> exists,

>>>>>>> it's just another drop in the ocean.  We shouldn't keep calling for new

>>>>>>> studies as if no data exist already.

>>>>>>> 

>>>>>>> We have hundreds of credible, peer-reviewed studies that unequivocally

>>>>>>> maintain that they demonstrate robust, statistically significant,

>>>>>>> replicable

>>>>>>> hormesis.  No one has seriously tried to refute these studies.  To argue

>>>>>>> that we should wait until hormesis "has achieved consensus" is not a

>>>>>>> responsible position for professionals in the field.  Even the latest

>>>>>>> HPJour, rec'd today, tries to argue for "excess cancers" in the

>>>>>>> Chernobyl

>>>>>>> emergency workers while conceding that overall mortality is

>>>>>>> significantly

>>>>>>> lower than the unirradiated controls.

>>>>>>> 

>>>>>>> Analyses that resort to gimmicks like using the lightly-irradiated

>>>>>>> population as controls in order to make the next dose groups look

>>>>>>> "excessive" should be re-analyzed properly.

>>>>>>> 

>>>>>>> Of course, data that could easily be obtained in connection with other

>>>>>>> work

>>>>>>> would be welcome.  For example, it is absolutely inexcusable to

>>>>>>> terminate

>>>>>>> the follow-up data on the remaining radium dial painters, to fail to

>>>>>>> request

>>>>>>> the full data on the Taiwanese irradiated apartment dwellers, to fail to

>>>>>>> get

>>>>>>> easily available data on radium and radon exposures in health spas, to

>>>>>>> gather data on radioactivity at the biologically-thriving hot jets in

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> ocean, to calculate the amount of natural radioactivity being dumped

>>>>>>> into

>>>>>>> the oceans from rivers (as compared with the presumably lesser amount of

>>>>>>> all

>>>>>>> human-made radioactivity, to determine health effects from

>>>>>>> medically-administered radiation, etc. etc.

>>>>>>> 

>>>>>>> Ted Rockwell

>>>>>>> 

>>>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>>>> rad-sci-l mailing list

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

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

>>>>>> 

>>>>>> 

>>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>>> rad-sci-l mailing list

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

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

>>>>> 

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> rad-sci-l mailing list

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

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

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> rad-sci-l mailing list

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

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

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> rad-sci-l mailing list

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

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

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> rad-sci-l mailing list

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

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

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> 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.