Re: Genetic effects of radiation on humans

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

Wade:
     The possible relevance of Neel et al. to LNT is unclear.  Neither is
the finding a new one.  In Awa's Chapter on Genetic Effects in "The
Effects of A-Bomb Radiation on the Human Body" (Shigematsu et al. eds) is
the conclusion.:"Although an attempt was made to assess the genetic
effects of aomic bomb radiation through the cytogenetic analysis of the
offspring of atomic bomb survivors, the results failed to provide any evidence 
of genetic damage.  However, this does not preclude the possibility that
radiation exposure causes an increased genetic risk, since it is necessary
to consider various confounding factors."  The section goes on to cite 
Neel et al. as proposing a doubling dose value of 1.7-2.2 Sieverts,
suggesting that this may be greater than for mice.  The final sentence
"The genetic effect of radiation on humnans is currently inadequately
understood..." The publication date is 1995, Harwood Academic Publishers
for Bunkoda Co. Ltd. Tokyo      John Goldsmith
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, H.Wade Patterson wrote:

> Group:
> At the HPS annual meeting there were arguments for and against the LNT
> and similar models (hypotheses).
> 
> For your information,here's an interesting paper with findings that fail
> to support the LNT and similar models (hypotheses). Quoting from
> below:"No statistically significant effects emerge with respect to eight
> different indicators."
> 
> Neel JV; Schull WJ; Awa AA; Satoh C; Kato H; Otake M; Yoshimoto Y.
> The children of parents exposed to atomic bombs: estimates of the
> genetic doubling dose of radiation for humans.
> American Journal of Human Genetics, 1990 Jun, 46(6):1053-72.
> 
> Abstract: The data collected in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the past
> 40 years on the children of survivors of the atomic bombings and on the
> children of a suitable control population are analyzed on the basis of
> the newly revised estimates of radiation doses. No statistically
> significant effects emerge with respect to eight different indicators.
> Since, however, it may confidently be assumed some mutations were
> induced, we have taken the data at face value and calculated the minimal
> gametic doubling doses of acute radiation for the individual indicators
> at various probability levels. An effort has also been made to calculate
> the most probable doubling dose for the indicators combined. The latter
> value is between 1.7 and 2.2 Sv. It is suggested the appropriate figure
> for chronic radiation would be between 3.4 and 4.5 Sv. These estimates
> suggest humans are less sensitive to the genetic effects of radiation
> than has been assumed on the basis of past extrapolations from
> experiments with mice.
> 
> Best wishes to all,
> -- 
> Wade
> 
> mailto:hwade@triax.com
> 
> H.Wade Patterson
> 1116 Linda Lane
> Lakeview OR 97630
> ph 541 947-4974
>