[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Hormetic Effects of Radiation should not be limited to cancer
I agrea you are right about cells behaving in a more simple fashion than a
complete organism.
I think in research for the mechanisms behind any biology, this is exactly
the reason to test different hyoptesis on cellcultures and on DNA level
first. Complete organisms are too complex.
If you know about the basic reactions of different types of cells, only then
you can design clever experiments on organisms and test the right factors
in epidemiological studies.
André Geerdink
>From: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>
>Reply-To: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>
>To: <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>, <jrcamero@wiscmail.wisc.edu>,
><goldinem@SONGS.SCE.COM>
>CC: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: RE: Hormetic Effects of Radiation should not be limited to cancer
>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:15:30 -0500
>
> >The persistence of the LNT is not due to ignorance about how the body
>functions, but to the large regulatory investment in that theory.
>Moreover, people (even scientists!) are often unwilling to see the
>evidence that destroys their pet theories.
>
>I agree, even while I don't believe in ICRP "conspiracy theories". The
>problem is that we have some evidence in certain studies, mostly at the
>cellular level, that indicate some isolated effects that are clearly
>demonstrable, but difficult to relate to the organism level. The same
>holds for the bystander effect, whose evidentiary basis is also strong,
>but which (on its face) contradicts evidence from valid experiments
>seeming to show a hormetic response. Because we see "changes in cells"
>from either does not indicate clearly how the organism, with its
>complexities of damage, repair, and cellular reproduction cycles, will
>ultimately respond. Then we have epidemiological studies, often with
>poor bases, from which people derive conclusions that suit them. I
>believe that if folks could get off their political agendas for a while
>and look at the biological evidence in toto, we could find some answers
>that would explain all of these effects and point us towards the
>correct, rational, dare I say scientific, policy for the future.
>
>
>Mike
>
>Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
>Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Vanderbilt University
>1161 21st Avenue South
>Nashville, TN 37232-2675
>Phone (615) 343-0068
>Fax (615) 322-3764
>Pager (615) 835-5153
>e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
>internet www.doseinfo-radar.com
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Search, for accurate results! http://search.msn.nl