Re: Lab researchers uncover new effects

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Hi Bruce, group,
 
> no, not really... not indirect as so far defined, but things change
> 
> most free radicals only have a lifetime in the nano to pico second or less
> time frame, which means they can only travel a short distance. The
> indirect effect as normally defined is only important w/in ~10-12 nm
> (max!) of the DNA itself. This is then well inside the nucleus of the
> cell, and very close to the DNA which is at about 2 nm wide.
> 
> Then, I am not sure what they are really saying they found, and think I
> should read more about their work before talking about it. There are
> signal pathways in the cellular membraines that could be affected by
> extracellular radicals, along with binding-receptor sites for signals
> (growth factor, etc) which if affected/damaged, could lead to increased
> proliferation, propagation, and reduced apotosis, i.e., better
> chance for oncogenic transformation/promotion. Have to see how it pans
> out. 
> 
> -Bruce Busby

Interesting. Sounds like this data may be useful to indicate that radiation
might contribute to an increase in cancer!  Fascinating. I guess Cohen's data
is an "ecological study"; and those rats just didn't cooperate. :-)  That
Frigerio's data and analysis, and the Chinese data, and the Shipyard Workers
data don't warrant being suppressed.  And the biology that shows beneficial
cellular responses in viable organisms, along with data that show that
background levels radiation damage is in the range of 10^-4 of normal
metabolic damage can just be (continue to be ) ignored in the interest of
radiation protection. :-) 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 Ryanchp@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > isn't this simply called the indirect action which results from chemical
> > entities such as free radicals,etc.?
> > 
> > ryanchp@aol.com