[ RadSafe ] RE: LNT now NOT "reasonable"

[John Jacobus]

Thanks for the information.  I appreciate any new
information on this subject.  Also, I appreciate
someone who can stay on topic and write a decent
sentence.

--- "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU> wrote:

> Friends,
>  
> Re NCRP-136, see:
>
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Correspondence/NCRP136/NCRP136Index.htm
> 
>  
> And our quick comments last Friday on the similar
> ICRP Committee 1 Task Group
> Report:
>
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/docs/Correspondence/ICRP-TG1comments.htm
> 
>  
> We anticipate that the LNT fraud will come apart in
> the assessment of the
> ICRP Recommendations, perhaps including
> consideration of the extensive actual
> science misconduct by authors committed to maintain
> the LNT and its profits.
>  
> Obviously, the LNT "debate" predates 1977. It was a
> major issue in the mid-
> late-50s, and since. Before that in the late '40s
> from the medical/drugs
> interest (suppressing data from the Manhattan
> Project research when the
> medical/FDA etc. agency controls had been weakened. 
> But brought back strong
> to constrain competition to medical/drug controls
> and profits.  This was
> initiated by the drug companies and FDA in the mid-
> late-30s.
>  
> And "hormesis" bi-phasic response is, and has to be,
> the natural condition in
> biology. Biological functions could not be
> maintained; life would not be
> sustainable, otherwise. 
>  
> For example, two recent papers by Ed Calabrese that
> further document
> voluminous current knowledge on the subject are:
>  
> 1)  Invited paper:  Paradigm lost, paradigm found:
> the re-emergence of
> hormesis as a fundamental dose response model in the
> toxicological sciences 
> 
> Edward J. Calabrese*
> 
> The quantitative features of the hormetic
> dose/response are described and
> placed within the context of toxicology.
> 
> Abstract:  This paper provides an assessment of the
> toxicological basis of
> the hormetic dose-response relationship including
> issues relating to its
> reproducibility, frequency, and generalizability
> across biological models,
> endpoints measured and chemical class/physical
> stressors and implications for
> risk assessment. The quantitative features of the
> hormetic dose response are
> described and placed within toxicological context
> that considers study
> design, temporal assessment, mechanism, and
> experimental model/population
> heterogeneity. Particular emphasis is placed on an
> historical evaluation of
> why the field of toxicology rejected hormesis in
> favor of dose response
> models such as the threshold model for assessing
> non-carcinogens and linear
> no threshold (LNT) models for assessing carcinogens.
> The paper argues that
> such decisions were principally based on complex
> historical factors that
> emerged from the intense and protracted conflict
> between what is now called
> traditional medicine and homeopathy and the overly
> dominating influence of
> regulatory agencies on the toxicological
> intellectual agenda. Such regulatory
> agency influence emphasized hazard/risk assessment
> goals such as the
> derivation of no observed adverse effect levels
> (NOAELs) and the lowest
> observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) which were
> derived principally from
> high dose studies using few doses, a feature which
> restricted perceptions and
> distorted judgments of several generations of
> toxicologists concerning the
> nature of the dose-response continuum. Such
> historical and technical blind
> spots lead the field of toxicology to not only
> reject an established
> dose-response model (hormesis), but also the model
> that was more common and
> fundamental than those that the field accepted.  c
> 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All
> rights reserved.
> 
> Keywords: Hormesis; U-shaped; J-shaped; Homeopathy;
> Dose-response; Biphasic;
> Risk assessment; Threshold; Linearity; History of
> science; History of
> medicine; Toxicology
> 
>  
> 2) Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 35:89-295, 2005 
> [NOTE: 207 PAGES!  PDF IS
> 2.5 MB]
> 
> Hormetic Dose-Response Relationships in Immunology:
> Occurrence, Quantitative
> Features of the Dose Response, Mechanistic
> Foundations, and Clinical
> Implications
> 
> Edward J. Calabrese
> 
> Environmental Health and Health Sciences, University
> of Massachusetts,
> Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
> 
> This article provides an assessment of the
> occurrence of
> immune-system-related hormetic-like biphasic
> dose-response relationships.
> Such dose-response relationships are extensive, with
> over 90 different immune
> response-related endpoints reported, induced by over
> 70 endogenous agonists,
> over 100 drugs, and over 40 environmental
> contaminants. Such hormetic
> responses were reported in over 30 animal models,
> over a dozen mammalian and
> human cell lines. These findings demonstrate that
> immune-system-related
> hormetic-like biphasic dose-response relationships
> are common and highly
> generalizable according to model, endpoint, and
> chemical class. The
> quantitative features of the dose response are
> generally consistent with
> previously published examples of hormetic dose
> responses for other biological
> endpoints. These findings were generally recognized
> and explicitly discussed
> by the original authors, often with consideration
> given to possible
> mechanistic foundations as well as numerous clinical
> implications. Despite
> the recognition by individual authors of the
> hormetic nature of these
> observed responses, the overall widespread nature of
> immune-related hormetic
> responses has been only little appreciated, with a
> general lack of insight
> into the highly generalizable nature of this
> phenomenon as well as the
> complex regulatory networks affecting biological
> switching mechanisms that
> result in the hormetic responses.
> 
> Keywords Hormesis, U-Shaped, J-Shaped, Immune
> Stimulation, Lymphocyte
> Stimulation, Metals, Stimulatory, Inhibitory,
> Opioids, Cytokines,
> Interleukins, Dose Response
> 
> Let me know if you want either of these papers for
> review.
> 
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sun 3/20/2005 12:26 PM
> To: howard long; Syd H. Levine; Gerald Nicholls;
> radsafe at radlab.nl;
> rad-sci-1 at WPI.EDU; Muckerheide, James
> Subject: Re: LNT now NOT "reasonable"
> 
> I always offer to provide others information to make
> up their own minds.  I would suggest that if you do
> go
> the the Radiation Safety and Health Web site you
> read
> the information critically.  I would also suggest
> that
> people, including Howard, read the NCRP Report 136
> to
> understand the underpinnings of the LNT.
> http://www.ncrponline.org/rpt136.html  I do not know
> how one can make an intelligent decision without
> understanding all of the facts. 
> 
> Despite what Howard says the LNT is reasonable, not
> 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

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


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball. 
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/