[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
More on Sensory Perception of Radiation
Dear Don and all,
It has been clearly demonstrated that certain animals
have the ability to sense radiation (rats, mice,
rabbits, etc.) at relative low doses (20 mr delivered at
200 mr/sec has been demonstrated as a threshold). The
olfactory bulb has been convincingly demonstrated as the
sensitive organ. Ozone has been demonstrated to
interfere with the sensory process (to my knowledge, the
specific mechanism for this interference has not been
investigated. If I recall, it is specific to
ozone, "fragrances" do not appear to block the sensing
process.) If my memory serves, "avoidance" reactions
that Dr. Myachi discussed with sand fleas have also been
demonstrated in mice (Dr. Myachi has a very interesting
portfolio of work in this area).
There is anecdotal evidence (some pretty convincing)
that some people can sense radiation exposure. This is
further corroborated by the fact that X-rays can be used
to alleviate pain (although it's not currently used in
clinical practice). I have not heard of skin being
perceptually sensitive, however. General reports are
scintillation in the eyes or some "taste" or "vague
sense" of exposure. There were formal studies of human
sensitivity, but they appeared to concentrate more on
any physical debilities induced by irradiation of the
brain for cancer treatment, and not specifically on the
sensory aspects of the exposures.
These effects appear to be dose-rate related; there also
seems to be a "total dose" window in some of them, i.e.,
the effects occur only when the dose is above a lower
threshold and below an upper threshold.
While it has not been clearly shown to occur in humans,
there is some evidence to suggest that the biochemical
processes involved in sensory detection could trigger a
sickness reaction. Of additional interest is the
observation that many of these biochemicals are also
radioprotective.
I published a paper on this last year; if anyone is
interested, I'll send a copy.
The researchers who have done the greatest body of
experimental work on this are Garcia (50's and 60's),
Kimeldorf (60's - 70's), and Myachi (current).
Jim Barnes, CHP
james.g.barnes@att.net
> I have heard anecdotal evidence of sensory perception of radiation, e.g.
> from a man I talked to many years ago in a bar at Seascale, a seaside town
> near the Windscale (Sallafield) reprocessing plant in UK. He told me, with
> some bravado, that he was not frightened of radioactive discharges. When he
> was swimming in the sea, he said, he could feel the radioactive particles
> pinging against his legs but he was sure that they were not penetrating his
> skin and he had never observed any harm. He appeared to be perfectly
> serious, and you will be pleased to know that he also appeared to be in
> outstandingly good health.
>
> I am particularly interested in the suggestion (to quote Klaus' Rhodes
> conference report): "Could it be that we developed warning systems such as
> pain and fever, unpleasant smells and sounds, even sunburns, against all
> real dangers, but evolution did not consider radiation a serious danger?"
> Does carbon monoxide confound or support this hypothesis? I am not sure
> whether harmful levels of carbon monoxide have come about only due to recent
> human activities or whether the human race would have been exposed to
> harmful levels during its evolution.
>
> Don Higson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>;
> rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu <rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu>
> Date: Saturday, 01 June 2002 2:07
> Subject: [rad-sci-l] Re: Sensory Perception of Radiation
>
>
> I am not sure that humans cannot sense or perceive ionizing radiation.
> Several years ago while working in areas with increased radiation levels, I
> thought I sensed a "tingling" sensation in and around my eyelids, especially
> when my eyes were closed. Perhaps it was psychosomatic, but when I discussed
> it with coworkers, some said that they also had a similar sensation. I tried
> to interest the AEC (it was a long time ago) into sponsoring a study
> (controlled experiments) to investigate the possibility on sensory
> perception of radiation, but nobody seemed interested at that time. I forgot
> about it until this subject came up here.
> Does anyone know if any scientific inquiry has been done on human
> sensory perception of radiation?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Perhaps we humans lack a specific organ for sensing ionizing radiation
> simply because we do not need one. Our bodies’ defense mechanism provides
> ample protection over the whole range of natural radiation levels—that is,
> from below 1 mSv to above 280 mSv per year.3,4 That range is much greater
> than the range of temperatures—about 50K—that humans are normally exposed
> to. Increasing the water temperature in your bath tub by only 80 K, from a
> pleasant level of 293 K to boiling point at 373 K (that is, by a factor of
> only 1.3), or decreasing it below freezing point (that is, by a factor of
> 1.07), would eventually kill you.
>
> "Because such lethal high or low temperatures are often found in the
> biosphere, the evolutionary development of an organ that can sense heat and
> cold has been essential for survival. Organs of smell and taste have been
> even more vital as defenses against dangerously toxic or infected food. But
> a lethal dose of ionizing radiation delivered in one hour—which for an
> individual human is 3000 to 5000 mSv—is a factor of 10 million higher than
> the average natural radiation dose that one would receive over the same time
> period (0.00027 mSv). Compared with other noxious agents, ionizing radiation
> is rather feeble. Nature seems to have provided living organisms with an
> enormous safety margin for natural levels of ionizing radiation—and also,
> adventitiously, for man-made radiation from controlled, peacetime sources.
>
> "In short, conditions in which levels of ionizing radiation could be noxious
> do not normally occur in the bioúsphere, so no radiation-sensing organ has
> been needed in humans and none has evolved."
>
> Regards, Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>
> To: <rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:28 PM
> Subject: FW: [rad-sci-l] 'Voting with feet' for/against Low vs. Hi Dose Rad!
> :-)
>
> > Friends,
> >
> > Klaus intended this for the group but hit "reply" instead of "Reply All"
> as I had changed it (but he's been away :-)
> >
> > Klaus, who made the ref to the lack of a rad sense? It has been
> identified before. Zbigniew?
> >
> > I have separately sent the pdf paper to Klaus for review. I did not notice
> that the journal title was not in the copy I made of the ref/abstract. It's
> in the J of Env Radioactivity. They don't have a pub date for it.
> >
> > Regards, Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker [mailto:Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker@t-online.de]
> > Sent: Thu 30-May-02 8:40 AM
> > To: Jim Muckerheide
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: [rad-sci-l] 'Voting with feet' for/against Low vs. Hi Dose
> Rad! :-)
> >
> > Friends,
> >
> > I remember that somebody once mentioned that snails can detect alpha
> > radiation, and we all know that heavy cosmic radiation particles cause
> > flashes in the closed eyes of astronauts. An interestinbg theory was
> > mentioned last week in Greece. During the very long time of evolution,
> > we developed warning mechanisms against all import dangers, e.g. pain,
> > fever, nasty/dangerous gases, too much light or noice.... The reason
> > that we have no detection system for ionizing radiation may simply be
> > that "mother nature" did not consider it a serious hazard!
> >
> > Regards. Klaus
> >
> > Jim Muckerheide schrieb:
> > > Friends, FYI.
> > >
> > > Our great friends Drs. Yamada and Miyachi, and Dr. Kanao, dramatically
> > > demonstrate that organisms that can sense radiation at 15 and 30 times
> > > background, SEEK the rad source at 15 times background, and REJECT the
> rad source at 30 times background!
> > >
> > > This is even more dramatic than, if not as compelling as, the rejection
> or elimination of tumors by the effect of LDR!
> > >
> > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> > > Radiation, Science, and Health
> > > =====================
> > > Short communication
> > > Terrestrial isopods congregate under a low-level
> > > <beta>-emitter source
> > > Tomoko Kanao (a), Yukihisa Miyachi (a) and Takeshi Yamada (b)
> > >
> > > a Department of Radiological Sciences, International University of
> Health and Welfare, Kitakanemaru 2600-1, Ohtawara-shi, Tochigi-ken 324-8501,
> Japan
> > > b Low-Dose Radiation Research Center, Central Research Institute of
> Electric Power Industry, Komae-shi, Tokyo 201-8511, Japan
> > >
> > > Received 23 November 2001; revised 12 February 2002; accepted 18
> February 2002. Available online 28 May 2002.
> > >
> > > Abstract
> > >
> > > Ionizing radiation is ubiquitous, but very few experiments have
> investigated
> > > the biological effects of the natural background radiation at very low
> doses
> > > (>10 mGy/yr). We examined whether the background radiation, or
> radiation of
> > > a slightly higher level, has a role in evoking changes in behaviors of
> > > terrestrial isopods (woodlice). Upon exposure to a source giving 15
> times
> > > the background level placed at one end of a box, a significant increase
> in the number of woodlice gathering under the <beta> -source was
> > > observed with time, as compared with the sham control.
> > >
> > > Terrestrial isopods have chemoreceptors (the olfactory system) on the
> > > terminal segment of their antennae. An additional experiment confirmed
> the involvement of these antennae in the radiation effect on behavior.
> After the excision of the antennae, no
> > > <beta>-taxis response
> > > was observed. The behavior of the group exposed to the source giving 30
> > > times the background tended to decrease gradually in the area of the
> source,
> > > and the individuals aggregated in the area away from the source. Thus,
> the
> > > olfactory sensor in the antennae may be an important organ involved in
> the
> > > prompt response to radiation exposure, and the discrimination of the
> > > radiation field strengths of radioisotopes.
> > >
> > > Author Keywords: Radioisotope; Terrestrial isopod; Behavior;
> Environmental radioactivity; Hormesis
> >
> > Klaus Becker, Boothstr. 27, D-12207 Berlin
> > Phone/Fax: 0049-30-772-1284
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/