[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/