[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancerrisk
John wrote: "When I was involved with animal testing, researchers did not
use mice for studying emesis. Rodents do not vomit."
But, vomiting is not a basic cellular mechanism.
The evolutionary factors that have programmed vomiting into us are much more
recent than the ones that determine the cell's responses to simple physical
stimuli, such as heat, pressure, radiation or light. It is to be expected
that there are differences between humans and mice when it comes to higher
functions.
Kai
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
To: "Kai Kaletsch" <kai@eic.nu>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancer
risk
> Kai,
> True. There are common evolutionary paths, but there
> are certainly differences. In biomedical research,
> one does not make the jump from mice to humans. The
> FDA now requires two species animal testing.
> http://www.fda.gov/cder/handbook/animal.htm
>
> When I was involved with animal testing, resaerchers
> did not use mice for studying emesis. Rodents do not
> vomit.
>
>
> --- Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > John wrote: "Animal studies are useful, but may not
> > reflect the actual
> > effects on humans."
> >
> > The next question would be: "How much difference in
> > the response to a simple
> > physical agent do you expect there to be between
> > animal and human cells ?"
> >
> > I can see animals and humans responding differently
> > to a virus, for example,
> > because that virus has evolved specifically for one
> > species. However, for
> > simple physical stimuli like heat, light, pressure
> > or radiation, why would
> > we expect much of a difference? If I drop a hot
> > soldering iron on my skin,
> > it probably has a very similar effect on me as it
> > would have on naked mouse.
> > I think the physical mechanisms of cells are pretty
> > standard among mammals.
> > We have a long time of common evolution.
> >
> > Kai
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
> > To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>;
> > <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;
> > <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises
> > OR LOWERS lung cancer
> > risk
> >
> >
> > > Howard,
> > > Animal studies are useful, but may not reflect the
> > > actual effects on humans. As a physician, I
> > assume
> > > you understand the issues with animal vs. human
> > > studies. As for the epidemiological, most conclude
> > > that there is no adverse effect to the radiation
> > > received. It is only those who have a political
> > > agenda that draw conclusions that the study
> > authors do
> > > not find.
> > >
> > > By the way, would you prescribe a CT scan to one
> > of
> > > your patients just so they get a dose of
> > radiation?
> > > Would you precribe one for yourself?
> > >
> > > --- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > Wrong, John,
> > > > At 100 mSv (approx10 Rad) effects have been
> > shown in
> > > > numerous animal and
> > > > epidemiologic studies (below). If you insist on
> > $800
> > > > M studies to prove
> > > > efficacy, like FDA requires, you support the
> > Empire
> > > > while depriving the
> > > > citizens.
> > > >
> > > > Howard Long
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>;
> > > > <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;
> > > > <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:59 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening
> > raises
> > > > OR LOWERS lung cancer
> > > > risk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Considering the levels of uncertainty of the
> > > > > statistical risk, I doubt that it cannot be
> > proven
> > > > > that 1 rad will INCREASE or DECREASE the risk.
> > At
> > > > > levels below 100 mSv no demonstrated effects,
> > > > positive
> > > > > or negative, have been seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > One rad acute (av CT dose) would more likely
> > > > LOWER
> > > > > > risks of cancers,
> > > > > > according to numerous references at
> > > > > > jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu or
> > > > > > muckerheide@comcast.net .
> > > > > > Howard Long
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
> > > > > > To: <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;
> > > > > > <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:03 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening
> > > > raises
> > > > > > lung cancer risk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, does frequent CT scanning also
> > > > increase
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > risk of other cancers, such as stomach,
> > liver,
> > > > > > > thyroid, etc.?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The real question is not does CT
> > screening
> > > > raise
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > lower the risk of lung
> > > > > > > > cancer but does it identify lung cancer
> > at
> > > > an
> > > > > > early
> > > > > > > > enough stage to be
> > > > > > > > cured.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thomas A. Conley, RRPT, CHP
> > > > > > > > Section Chief, Radiation and Asbestos
> > > > Control
> > > > > > > > Kansas Department of Health and
> > Environment
> > > > > > > > Phone: (785) 296-1565
> > > > > > > > email: tconley@kdhe.state.ks.us
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
> > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > "To be persuasive, we must be believable,
> > > To be believable, we must be credible,
> > > To be credible, we must be truthful."
> > > Edward R. Murrow
> > >
> > > -- John
> > > John Jacobus, MS
> > > Certified Health Physicist
> > > e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> > finish.
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > >
> >
> ************************************************************************
> > > 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/
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "To be persuasive, we must be believable,
> To be believable, we must be credible,
> To be credible, we must be truthful."
> Edward R. Murrow
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/