|
Thanks to all who set me straight on this one.
Several people off list have pointed out that oxygen is often
used in hospitals etc. Another responder informed me that oxygen is not
considered a carcinogen, but is one of the main factors in aging. This is
probably what the discussion that I was thinking of was
saying.
So, my post about oxygen being a carcinogen should go in the
"ooops" file and I apologize to the makers of the stuff for any lost
sales it may have caused.
Kai
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:28
AM
Subject: RE: Oxygen, Cancer,
Longevity
Kai,
Oxygen is
considered a modifying factor when looking at the biological effects of
radiation. The presence of oxygen makes cells more sensitive to the
effects of radiation exposure. A practical application of this is in
radiation therapy of cancer patients. Since tumor cells are less well
oxygenated, a larger dose is required to damage them than healthy
tissue. As for altitude and radiation hormesis, I would think that the
connection results from increased natural background radiation exposure.
For example, people in Denver have higher average background exposures
than people living in lower altitudes. There have been studies of people
living in higher than average natural background areas (China) which
have lead some to believe in radiation hormesis.
Toli
Mikell
--- On Tue 03/11, Kai Kaletsch < eic@shaw.ca >
wrote:
From:
Kai Kaletsch [mailto: eic@shaw.ca]
To:
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003
09:57:28 -0600
Subject: Oxygen, Cancer, Longevity
Friends,
I seem to remember that
during a discussion on the beneficial effects of radiation, someone
suggested that the lower cancer rates (or was it longevity in
general?) at higher altitudes were due to the lower oxygen
concentration and not due to the beneficial effects of radiation. Some
animal studies were cited.
Could someone refresh my
memory on this? (Or set me straight, preferably in a professional
manner, which ever the case might be.) Is excess oxygen associated
with poor health? Is this a reasonably accepted fact or is it a far
out theory?
Thank You,
Kai
----- Original Message -----
From:
Kai Kaletsch
To: blhamrick@AOL.COM ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003
3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Hazardous vs.
Radioactive Materials I thought
oxygen at concentrations found at sea level was a known carcinogen
(??). Don't know the dose response. Don't know what the ALARA police
says about the new oxygen lounges at the airports.Kai-----
Original Mes! sage -----
From:
blhamrick@aol.com
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003
3:37 PM
Subject: Hazardous vs.
Radioactive Materials
This may be slightly
off-topic for this list, but I was wondering if anyone knew of any
specific hazardous materials (carcinogens) that are present in the
natural background, as radioactive material is, and what the
"background" risk levels might be for those hazardous
materials.
Barbara
|
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on
the Web!
|