Re: Stochastic vs. Non-Stochastic (from the Denver Thread)

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

Hello, Jim,



Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, let me take it to a 

different stimulus-response situation.



I know if I eat a LOT of peanut butter, I'll get fatter than I already am 

and may die sooner.



However, if my son gets close to peanut butter he will have an allergic 

reaction and may die without treatment.



In this case, we know of the allergic sensitivity and suspect peanut butter 

is a serious potential trigger. We carry medicine for him at all times.



Are you suggesting that there may be some sensitivity (like the food 

allergy) or some lack of protective mechanism in some random group of the 

population that makes them more sensitive to low level doses?



If so, it sounds like an interesting course of investigation to follow.



It also may extend to cancers in general, and not just radiation-induced 

cancers, don't you think? Sounds like a lot more work on the human genome 

might tease this out.



Cheers,



Richard

http://www.richardhess.com/tape/

Aurora, Ontario



At 09:19 PM 12/20/2004 +0000, james.g.barnes@att.net wrote:

>Dear all;

>

>There is a general opinion that there are stochastic and non-stochastic 

>effects.  We say they are stochastic because the effects from exposure 

>appear to be statistically distributed in the population (we can't predict 

>who will experience effects, therefore we say it's a chance event).  We 

>say non-stochastic, because above a certain threshold, all exposed persons 

>appear to display the same set of symptoms.

>

>I've often considered this approach to have a gap in logic.  We are saying 

>that the chances of experiencing effects from low-doses is a "chance" 

>thing.  What if they are not; what if they are just as non-stochastic as 

>the effects at higher doses, but only to a sub-group of people who are 

>more inclined to display effects than others (probably through genetic 

>pre-disposition).  What if there were sub-groups who simply could not 

>physiologically handle radiation exposure as well as everybody else, and 

>that these "stochastic effects" are actually due to the stochastic 

>distribution of these overly-sensitive individuals in an otherwise normal 

>population.  The effects aren't stochastic; the distribution of these 

>sensitive individuals in the overall population is the stochastic distribution.

>

>I have to think this alternative theory has been explored to some 

>degree?  Have any of you seen any discussion / research into this concept?

>

>

>Jim Barnes

>





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

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/