[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancer are not surprising
Ted,
Very true comments. That is why I try to view the cellular biology from the
analysis of organisms and populations, and why we should be careful in
applying scientific studies to regulations. It is fascinating and true that
genetic and cellular damage can be demonstrated, and may provide clues the
genesis of cancers and other malignancies. However, it must be remembered
that while cells are complex, they are being experimented on in isolation.
Frequently, the exposure risks never seem to work their way into more
complex, organizied organisms. Reasons are probably related to latency,
cell death, etc. To me, this is why the epidemiology data has a tough time
detecting cancers from exposure predictions. I think you will see the type
of response, cellular v. epidemiological, with a lot of chemical
carcinogens.
-- John
John P. Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: jenday1@msn.com
The comments presented are mine and do not reflect the opinion of my
employer or spouse.
------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@CPCUG.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:09 PM
To: Philippe Duport; 'Strom, Daniel J'; 'RADSAFE Listserver (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and
cance r are not surprising
> What I do not understand is why the "negative image" effect appears to be
so consistent over the all USA territory.
Friends:
An even more interesting question is, why does nearly ALL low-dose
irradiation data, epidemiological, clinical, animal, plant, for alphas,
gammas, etc.,--for all living organisms, but not isolated cells with no
bodily defense support--all seem to show no deleterious health effects and
most show beneficial effects (as stated directly in NCRP-136, as previously
quoted here). If this is a random, meaningless thing, why does it
consistently show the same thing? To sustain a model that has nothing but
vague questions to support it?
Why should we feel obligated to keep coming up with reasons to explain away
a simple phenomenon that is widely accepted in the rest of biology?
. . .
************************************************************************
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/