Re[4]: how many sensitive cells?

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

> >But I saw no comments on what I was trying to find out - Is the total
> >number of cells  in the body that are possible proginators for cancer a
> >constant across adults of widely varying sizes?  Or a constant to a
> >reasonable approximation?
> 
> Oh I see - cell COUNT not cell MASS.  ie. do all humans have the same CELL
> COUNT regardlessof mass??  I don't know but I don't think so.
> 
> I'd also suspect MASS is more important than NUMBER.
> 
> BUT what I was trying to say was:
> 
> IFF one takes LNT to be true ...... THEN the risk to the population
> - be it the population of cells in and organism or individuals in a
> community - is the SAME if all the cells (using the organism model) are
> exposed to 1x rads or 1/2 to 2x or 1/1000 to 1000x.
> 
> LNT says this would hold, up to prompt effects.
> 
> So - when one calculates EDE one is calculating the risk to the organism AS
> IF ALL CELLS WERE UNIFORMLY IRRADIATED - thus assuming the local variations
> were within the realm of linearity - ie - no prompt cell mortalities since
> dead cells cannot become cancerous (I think).
> 
> So - EDE DOES in fact mathematically attempt to weight TOTAL energy
> deposited in TOTAL mass - ie, the Fluence to each and every cell - BUT
> expresses this in units that are a "concentration unit" and thus averaging
> over the organism/population is mathematically the same thing.

I agree that this is all true for the "biology" as assumed by ICRP. But
consider that it does not stand up for the biology of real cells, organs,
organisms, or populations. 

Also, while this correctly states that this is true as presented by the LNT
believers, it is also true that this is the flawed basis to support the LNT
itself. Another example of the circular reasoning that applies to the false
assumptions of the LNT and biological effects. Note that this is even somewhat 
independent of the underlying aspects of the stimulated/adaptive responses in
repair mechanisms of cellular and molecular biology. This starts right at the
issue of addressing "risks" based on 'hits' on actual cells and
organs/organisms. 

In biology, cells don't exist in isolation. By using data from hits on cells
in cultures that do not have functional response capability, it is easy to
show "linear" responses. As soon as you take 4 cells with communication, the
response will not, can not be "linear". All the framework of the biological
assessment of "dose" as energy concentration falls. This is part of the
biological work that has been judiciously ignored by the ICRP et al for the
last 15-20 years, and longer if you go back to the work of Brues and others. 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.