RE: Hormetic Effects of Radiation should not be limited to cancer

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>]

One of the things we've learned about complex systems, especially living

systems, is that you can learn only a limited amount by studying their

components.  You can't learn much about cathedrals by studying the stones

they're built of.



Ted Rockwell



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of andre geerdink

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:32 AM

To: michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: 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



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

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/