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

Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no ri sk.

Mark
 
I agree with you. I worked at AECL/CRL in the 70's and 80's and the biology branch did some study on AT homo and hetro zagots (sp?). If my memory is correct, the homo's all died young, but the hetro's had a very high radiation induced cancer RISK but were otherwise "normal".
 
How many of us are hetro's to other genetic sensitivities.
 
Paul Unrau, do you know?
 
John
_______________________
John R Johnson, PhD
idias@interchange.ubc.ca
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no ri sk.

Jim,
 
Patients with Ataxia Telangectasia have been shown to have increased radiosensitivity.
 
Mark Hanlon,
RSO,
Children's Hospital at Westmead,
Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Dukelow, James S Jr [mailto:jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV]
Sent: Saturday, 28 December 2002 4:31 AM
To: 'John Johnson'; Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'Ted Rockwell'; BLHamrick@AOL.COM; jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu; Radsafe
Cc: jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET
Subject: RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no ri sk.

John,
 
Applying your reasoning to other societal situations, we would not allow the use of peanuts, or any other foodstuff to which some people are deathly allergic.
 
I am not aware of any genetic makeups that predispose individuals to radiation risk, independently of risks associated with the wide variety of other agents that cause DNA damage.  Regulating radiation with LNT will not protect those individuals with DNA repair defects, since there are so many other DNA damaging agents.
 
A Risk-Free New Year sounds pretty dull, perhaps even unhealthy.
 
Best regards.
 
Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
 
These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: John Johnson [mailto:idias@interchange.ubc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 3:55 PM
To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'Ted Rockwell'; BLHamrick@AOL.COM; jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu; Radsafe
Cc: jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET
Subject: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

John and others.
 
I'm glad to see that there is some support on Radsafe for the ICRP/NCRP LNT position. I would add an item to what you wrote.
 
I've posted this on Radsafe in the past: i.e., there are different risks for people with different genetic makeups, and LNT is intended to give adequate protection for ALL people.
 
A belated Merry Christmas and a Happy (Risk Free!) New year
 
John
_______________________
John R Johnson, PhD


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete it and notify the sender.

Views expressed in this message and any attachments are those
of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the
Childrens Hospital at Westmead

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
virus scanned and although no computer viruses were detected,
the Childrens Hospital at Westmead accepts no liability for any
consequential damage resulting from email containing computer
viruses.
**********************************************************************