[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises OR LOWERS lung cancerrisk



A lot of studies involving challenging doses were

performed on animals (see, for example,

http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-89838-678-0) and humans. 

My feeling, for what it is worth, is that there have

not been enough long-term studies following such

studies.  



A number of years ago, I talking with one researcher

and was told that while the animals could survive

higher doses of radition, the overall life-span of the

animals was not changed.  Can anyone on this list

comment on this claim?



--- Kai Kaletsch <eic@shaw.ca> wrote:

> John wrote: "...doses at rates less than 100 mSv

> cannot be shown to have

> either a beneficial or detrimental effect."

> 

> I think the upper limit on any detrimental effect

> per Sv is fairly well

> established and, yes, it is so small that it may be

> difficult to observe

> experimentally. What is the upper limit of the

> beneficial effect per Sv?

> Which experiments or data sets can be used to

> establish that upper limit?

> 

> 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>

> Cc: <rad-sci-1@wpi.edu>

> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:34 PM

> Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening raises

> OR LOWERS lung cancer

> risk

> 

> 

> > I appreciate the information on PSA and its

> relation

> > to prostate cancer.

> >

> > While effects can be shown for isolated cases of

> low

> > dose radiation expose, hormesis will always be a

> > marginal subject. As I have stated many times,

> doses

> > at rates less than 100 mSv cannot be shown to have

> > either a beneficial or detrimental effect.

> >

> > --- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > > John and other hormesis marginalizers,

> > >

> > > 1. Metastases or regrowth may be indicated by

> PSA up

> > > after prostate removal

> > > or ablation.

> > > 2. Radiation oncologists and all other

> physicians

> > > are greatly inhibited by

> > > lawsuits for any non-standard treatment.

> > > 3.Sensitzing with LDR (10-75 rad) before

> > > radiotherapy of c100rad 3x/week for

> > > 6-8 weeks, has shown much better response of

> cancers

> > > (see references on

> > > Muckerheide's list below).

> > >

> > > Howard Long

> > >

> > > ----- Original Message ----- 

> > > From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>

> > > To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>; "John

> > > Jacobus"

> > > <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>;

> <TConley@kdhe.state.ks.us>;

> > > <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> > > Cc: <rad-sci-1@wpi.edu>

> > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:37 PM

> > > Subject: Re: Article: Lung cancer screening

> raises

> > > OR LOWERS lung cancer

> > > risk

> > >

> > >

> > > > Why would a patient be treated for increased

> PSA?

> > > > Since when is a radiation oncologist

> restricted by

> > > > regulations?  How would sensitizing a patient

> with

> > > LDR

> > > > help with radiation treatement?  Following

> your

> > > logic,

> > > > that would make the tumor more radiation

> > > resistent?

> > > >

> > > > --- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > > > > "Political agenda" or scientific correction,

> > > John?

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, I would want hormesis, hopefully with

> less

> > > cost

> > > > > but dose equal to or

> > > > > greater than CT.

> > > > >

> > > > > And it's not just me.

> > > > > At the DDP meeting 2 days ago, a health

> > > physicist

> > > > > sought from me and a

> > > > > radiation oncologist how to get LDR (for

> > > increasing

> > > > > PSA, after prostate

> > > > > removal years ago for cancer). That

> radiationo

> > > > > oncologist had felt

> > > > > restricted 5 years ago (from treating

> another

> > > health

> > > > > physicist I referred to

> > > > > him with prostate cancer), with sensitizing

> LDR

> > > 2

> > > > > weeks before high dose

> > > > > radiotherapy for the cancer.

> > > > >

> > > > > Apparently, standard therapy (dictated by

> > > lawsuits)

> > > > > is becoming more

> > > > > scientific.

> > > > >

> > > > > Howard Long

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > =====

> > +++++++++++++++++++

> > "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!?

> > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail

> SpamGuard.

> > 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/