[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation is good for you

[John Jacobus]

One of the interesting problems in biomedical research
is the works well in rats may not in humans.  To quore
a researcher, "we can cure cancer in rats." To me, the
"test" should be based on careful human
epidemiological studies, where confounding factors are
controlled.  I am not in favor of medical or worker
studies due to the questions that are usually raised. 
To see increases in immune markers doesn't impress me,
but they might be to others.

There is certainly studies that show no harmful
effects below about 0.1 Sv (10 rem).  To prove that
hormetic effects occur would take a bit more work. 
What kind of study would YOU like to see?


--- Susan Gawarecki <loc at icx.net> wrote:

> This question hasn't bothered the EPA much regarding
> experiments with 
> chemical compounds on animals; they just extrapolate
> human risk based on 
> the dose:weight ratio.  If there's a varience
> between species (such as 
> the different effects of PCBs on hamsters and guinea
> pigs) then they 
> choose the most affected species.  This is the
> conservative approach in 
> the absence of experimental data on humans.
> 
> So, what study design would you suggest to
> definatively determine 
> whether or not there is a hormesis effect at low
> exposures?
> 
> Susan G
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> 
> >Of course, the big question is does this relate to
> human
> >populations.  
> >  
> >
> 
> 


=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size 
of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong 
terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting."

- New York Times, September 4, 1967


-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com