Re: Radiation Biology

[John Goldsmith <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>]

On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, Michael P. Grissom wrote:


> 1.  Just a bit of a gripe.  The development of Health Physics 
> in recent years has tended to concentrate on the "physics" (at 
> the experience of the "health"-->which is predicated on an 
> adequate knowledge of radiation biology!) with relatively less
> concern about the "health" element.  This is shown on
> examinations in health physics where "radiation biology"
> is actually nothing more than a series of mathematical models
> for in vivo kinetics (radionuclides) or radiation effects
> (relative risk model, e.g.) on populations.

Dr. Grissom:
     I write as a physician-epidemiologist who started in physics, 
and while I agree with your concern about the limited health input
to "health physics", I must also insist that radiation exposures and
effects is but a tiny part of physics.  Many of the most exciting
potential applications of PHYSICS IN HEALTH remain to be developed.
I spent some of my career working on airflow behavior in the resp-
iratory system, there are many applications of fluid flow dynamics in 
the circulatory system.  Renal function and many other cellular functions
depend on membrane transmission dynamics.  One could go on to signal
processing in the Central Nervous System, etc.  Many problems in 
toxicology and cell reproductive behavior require application of 
principles of materials absorption and dessorption.  
> 2.  I think radiation biology has become, strangely, something
> of a lost art.  There really is more to it than putting cell or
> tissue culture flasks under a radiotherapy beam to confirm
> how many monitor units are being delivered or to exercise
> chromosome analysis labs!
    On this point, I would opt for a strengthening of epidemiology, 
as a way of recovering the perspective on human health. 

> 3.  This situation was driven home to me at a visit to a
> major DOE laboratory that had been the site of a large number
> of large animal radiobiological research projects in the past.  
> The head of the section responsible for radiobiological 
> research at the time (about a year ago) noted that there 
> really was no further need for that kind of research!  When 
> I asked that question of an experienced radiobiology 
> researcher at LBL (who worked with the Donner laboratory 
> program for many years), her opinion was that there were vast 
> unexplored opportunities in this field!
> 
> 4.  Since making good radiation protection decisions is
> (theoretically) based on a solid foundation (i.e., knowledge 
> of biological effects), it would seem that health physics 
> hasn't improved in technical rigor (other than the definite 
> gains in the level of detail of radiation transport codes) a 
> great deal (or at least as much as it should have) for a 
> number of years now!  I agree with the long statements by Jim
> M. and others that a lot of good work was done in the past (an
> amazing large part of which was never published); however, there
> are many new techniques that would increase the power of new
> investigations today (and reduce the number of animals involved
> without an undue loss of statistical power-->computer modeling
> DOES NOT WORK for radbio, yet...).  So much for today's gripe!  
	Biology is more than experimental animal research.  Human
reactions are what are critical.
	John Goldsmith, M.D.,M.P.H. Professor of Epidemiology
        Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
        FAculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of
           the Negev  {GJOHN@BGUMAIL.BGU.AC.IL}  

> (This is, of course, my opinion only, not Stanford's or DOE's.)
>      Michael P. Grissom                                                   
>      Asst Dir (ESH) for Env/RadProt/WasteMan            
>      Stanford Linear Accelerator Center                         
>      MS-84
>      2575 Sand Hill Road
>      Menlo Park, CA 94025
>      Phone:  415-926-2346
>      Fax:       415-926-3030
>      MIKEG@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
> 
>