[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stochastic vs. Non-Stochastic (from the Denver Thread)
No, I don't think you're oversimplifying.
It's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. If there were embedded
"sensitives" in the general population, then one would think you'd see an
increase in cancer rates in a rad worker population, and we generally don't
see such things until crossing a threshold of 10 - 20 R total lifetime dose.
Hmmmm.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crossley, Steven" <Steven.Crossley@health.wa.gov.au>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: RE: Stochastic vs. Non-Stochastic (from the Denver Thread)
> A thought on this topic...
>
> Presumably you are suggesting that there would be some lower than
> average (but above average background) threshold level for the
> susceptible members of the population. A group that always get cancer
> from background levels would presumably have been removed by natural
> selection.
>
> If this were the case would evidence not appear for radiation workers,
> in that we generally receive slightly above background doses and we
> would presumably have just as high a proportion of radio-sensitive
> persons amongst us as the general population.
>
> Perhaps I'm over-simplifying
>
> Steve Crossley
> Perth, Australia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 December 2004 6:56 AM
> To: james.g.barnes@att.net; RadSafe Bulletin Board
> Subject: Re: Stochastic vs. Non-Stochastic (from the Denver Thread)
>
> 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/
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/