[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.