Consider:
(1) Not all DNA damage leads to cancer. Frequently, DNA damage leads to cell death.
(2) Cells irradiated in isolation cannot truely represent the synergistic response of the whole animal. This is why epidemiological studies have not shown higher incidences of cancer or ill-effects of radiation at low doses.
I would say that their statement that "the body simply does not recognize lower levels of damage" is a brash statement without foundation.
Michael Hahn <michael.hahn@lvl.brandenburg.de> wrote:
I found the same story in my yesterday s nespaper.
http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/wissenschaft/232739.html
but surprisingly not yet at PNN Online, that lists publications up to April 1st.
What does that mean:
"hey propose, that the body simply does not recognize lower levels of damage and does not
move to repair it."
I thought the body (the repair mechanism) recognizes rather the outcomes of radiation (i.e. DNA-breaks) than the
radiation itself. By the way: what does the latter mean from a philosophical point of view ;-) ?
What type of radiation outcome different from DNA-breaks should that be, that triggers the DNA-repair mechanism?
So should we all move to Kerala?
A physicist s not a biologist s opinion.
. . .
!