[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancerrisk
My point is that not all organisms have the same
responses to heat, light, radiation, etc. Grand
statements like that are what is wrong with many of
the studies that compare radiation and biological
responses. Human cells in petrie(sp?) dishes do not
respond the same as cell in the organism. And, yes,
even simple cells respond to light differently.
--- Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"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!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
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/