RE: LNT

[Ruth Sponsler <jk5554@YAHOO.COM>]

I think some of the range mentioned may be appropriate

for mice but I think it's too high for humans.  The

gangrene may have been cured but were there after

effects?



I just read Parsons' QRB article today.  In it the

evolutionary aspects of variation in natural

background levels (_including_ geographic outliers

i.e. monazite sand region of Brazil and Ramsar Iran)

are very important. Levels above those found in nature

involve stress-derived hormesis (that transitions to

harm) rather than background hormesis.



7-14 cGy/y was sufficient to increase the lifespan of

mice(Caratero et al. 1998).



Very interesting subject as I used to study

temperature stresses and adaptation albeit on insects.

 



Parsons studied temperature and EtOH stresses and

adaptation in _Drosophila_ inhabiting rotting fruit

(lots of heat and alcohol in that mess) and found

adaptive responses that led him to the hormesis

theories as a generalized hypothesis.

===================================================

Caratero A, Courtade M, Bonnet L, Planel H, Caratero

C.1998.   Effect of a continuous gamma irradiation at

a very low dose on the life span of mice. 

Gerontology. 1998;44(5):272-276.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9693258&dopt=Abstract



Parsons PA.  2001.  The hormetic zone: an ecological

and evolutionary perspective based upon habitat

characteristics and fitness selection.   Q Rev Biol.

76(4):459-467. (abstract already to list)



Parsons PA.  1999. Low level exposure to ionizing

radiation: do ecological and evolutionary

considerations imply phantom risks?     Perspect Biol

Med. Autumn;43(1):57-68.  (no abstract available)



~Ruth Sponsler aka Ruth 2



--- Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu> wrote:

> Note that Luckey's literature shows evidence for

> benefit 106 years ago!

> :-)  Or the U-ore or Ra-ore pads from the '20s-'30s,

> or as recent as the

> '60s. See Paul Frames "quack cures' page at:

>

http://www.orau.com/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm

> 

>  

> In the '20s low dose radiation (to a few hundred

> rad) stopped gangrene

> in its tracks, virtually eliminating amputations and

> death when not

> advanced to terminal conditions.

>  

> Regards, Jim

> =========

> 

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

> 	From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net 

> 	Sent: Tue 15-Jan-02 1:42 PM 

> 	To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM 

> 	Cc: lescrable@HOTMAIL.COM;

> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu 

> 	Subject: Re: LNT

> 	

> 	

> 	"-hormetic range usually <10mSv/d or <50cSv acute

> exposure for

> mammals-." 

> 	TD Luckey Radiation Hormesis CRC Press, 1990 p42. 

> 

> 	Thus up to half the dose giving symptoms, there was

> evidence for

> benefit 12 years ago. Cameron proposes that we

> enable deprived areas to

> supplement radiation, at least up to the mountain

> state background, like

> the nuclear shipyard workers with less cancer

> (doubling gulf coast

> background). 

> 

> 	How about offering 10 x usual US background

> radiation, like

> those sections of Ramisar, Iran with best lymphocyte

> activation? Of

> course accidental overdose must be carefully

> avoided, as it is in spent

> fuel transit in England. 

> 

> 	Howard Long 

> 

> 	RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote: 

> 

> 		At least for now I would go with the HPS statement

> that

> at less than 1 rem/year (I am not sure of this

> number)  the cancer risk

> should be treated as a distribution whose lower end

> is zero (those are

> not the exact words -- I am paraphrasing from

> memory). 

> 

> 		What strikes me as ridiculous is multplying a

> population

> dose of, say, 15 mrem/year (the EPA air standard) by

> 0.0005 and saying

> that an individual exposed to this has one chance in

> 100,000 (it's

> actually 7.5E-6) of a "latent cancer fatality" from

> that exposure.  Even

> worse, that in an urban population of a million

> persons with an average

> exposure of 15 mrem, there will be 7.5 "latent

> cancer fatalities"

> attributable to that exposure.  It's the blind

> application of a linear

> extrapolation to zero that is simplistic and I think

> misleading. 

> 

> 		The literature, including Health Physics,

> increasingly

> shows evidence of thresholds (and I am not talking

> about Bernie Cohen's

> papers).  One recent article on the atom bomb

> survivors seemed to show a

> threshold for cancer of 20 Gy!  I am not touting

> this -- I think we need

> to keep studying this and come up with the same kind

> of completely

> credible threshold that EPA has set for, for

> example, the common air

> pollutants. 

> 

> 		Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. 

> 		ruthweiner@aol.com

> 

> 



> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/ms-tnef

name=winmail.dat







__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!

http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

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

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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/