Re: Laymans questions on hormesis and LNT

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

My question is how you define the forest.  Do you look

for double-stand breaks?  Do you look for enzyme

activation?  Do you look at cells that survive despite

double-stand breaks?  



The devil is always in the details.



--- BLHamrick@AOL.COM wrote:

> In a message dated 8/28/2003 5:05:01 AM Pacific

> Standard Time, 

> crispy_bird@yahoo.com writes:

> While this is true by definition, I doubt if it is

> true in biology.  The result will depending on the

> endpoint you study, whether it the production of

> double-strand breaks, activation of repair enzymes,

> etc.  To me, the real test should be the

> epidemiological evaluation of populations.  As noted

> in many of the discussion on this list, the results

> are based on projecting high dose results to low

> dose

> levels where reliable results are hard to extract.

> I agree that the real test should be based on an

> epidemiological evaluation.  

> My point was to reach to the generalized definitions

> of the LNT vs. hormesis. 

>  LNT relies on a theory of harm at every level, and

> hormesis relies on some 

> overall benefit at low levels of insult (whatever

> the "insult").  I was just 

> looking to describe the forest in my response.

> 

> Barbara

> 





=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

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/