Re: Genetic Effects; Then and Now

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

I am not sure if the statement is arrogance or a sign

of ignorance.  Biology is not like physics.  We do not

understand all of the laws of how things work.  Even

though the Darwinism theories are accepted, e.g.,

survivability of the fittest, etc., the devil is in

the detail.  Why do there appear to be spurts in the

fossil records?  Was it due to radiation (which I

doubt) or other environmental pressures and/or biotia.

 I would suspect there are probably may catalysts,

i.e., heat, light, chemical and radiation. See

http://kosmoi.com/Life/Biology/Evolution/



It is clear that our understanding of what goes on in

cells may not apply to larger, more organized

organisms.  One problem is what do you select as the

end-point.  If you have cells in culture and irradiate

them, changes may or may not appear during the

analysis of the DNA.  If effects are evident, are they

detrimental to the cell or progeny.  If you look for

apoptosis, do you see cells surviving because of cell

repair or DNA damage that was inconsequential?  The

ultimate biological effects come in shades of gray,

not black and white.



Regarding genetic effects in human, my understanding

is that not enough humans have recieved sufficient

doses to demonstate an effect.  (I think that is

good.)  See paragraph 6 at

http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/reportga.pdf



The entire UNSCEAR report is at

http://www.unscear.org/reports/2001.html



--- Phil Rutherford <email@philrutherford.com> wrote:



> If what Jim says is true, the assumption that

> "mutations in advanced organisms must be

> detrimental" speaks volumes about the arrogance man.

>  Scientists at the end of the 19th century also

> believed that most "science" had been discovered and

> explained.  We know better now ..... but maybe not! 

> 

> I have always assumed (with no data to back it up)

> that the speed and diversity of Darwinian evolution

> on Earth, was fuelled by a universal catalyst .....

> radiation.  With no background radiation to ensure a

> sufficient pool of genetic mutations in each

> generation, surely evolution would have occurred at

> a much slower rate.

> 

> Evolution is an ongoing process, and still being

> fuelled by the same catalyst.

> 

> Phil Rutherford

> email@philrutherford.com

> www.philrutherford.com

> 

> 

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

>   From: james.g.barnes@att.net 

>   To: Ted Rockwell 

>   Cc: James Barnes ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu ;

> Muckerheide-MA 

>   Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 10:01 AM

>   Subject: RE: Genetic Effects; Then and Now

> 

> 

>     Which is another interesting point that I failed

> to mention.  The assumption was that there these

> mutation events were assumed to be ALWAYS

> detrimental.  The logic was "man is an advanced

> organism, and in an advanced organism, mutations

> must be assumed to be deleterious" (or words to that

> effect).

> 

> 

> 

>     Jim Barnes

> 

> 

> 

>     -------------- Original message from "Ted

> Rockwell" : -------------- 

> 

> 

>     Jim:

> 

>     I think it's pretty well established that no

> increase in the normal level of birth defects has

> ever been shown in humans, but I don't know what the

> best references for that would be.  Jim Muckerheide:

> can you suggest some refs or offer any other

> thoughts?  There is also the point that every

> chromosomal effect is not necessarily a detriment.

> 

>     Ted Rockwell

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

>       From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf

> Of James Barnes

>       Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:54 AM

>       To: radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

>       Subject: Genetic Effects; Then and Now

> 

> 

>       Dear all;

> 

>       Last week I sent out a request for information

> regarding 1950 - 1955 "state of the art" radiation

> assumptions.  I've gotten back some very interesting

> references.  Thanks to all of you who sent them

> along.

> 

>       One key assumption I find quite interesting. 

> The general theme is this.  Radiation causes genetic

> mutations.  These genetic mutations are

> irreversible.  The number of genetic mutations is

> directly proportional to the amount of absorbed

> dose.  Since the number of mutations is proportional

> to total absorbed dose and are irreversible, it does

> not matter if the dose is delivered chronically or

> acutely; they are equally harmful.  This is

> mentioned in a number of references in the 1959

> timeframe, including Glasstone and other reputable

> sources.

> 

>       Is this specific assumption still true, or has

> it been convincingly demonstrated that it is not

> true (I seem to recall sitting through some PEP

> sessions where reversibility of genetic mutations

> were discussed in some detail, but alas I cannot

> remember who was presenting it).  If not true, what

> are the key references that refute this early

> assumption.

> 

>       Also, just as an aside, I am reading a small

> book called "No Place to Hide" about a medical

> doctor who did some of the HP work at the Crossroads

> test (the test at Bikini Atoll where they blew up

> the old ships).  Really fascinating stuff; a good

> evening read.

> 

>       Jim Barnes

> 





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects."

Will Rogers



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com





		

_______________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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

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/