• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


emerging paradigms in Radio-Biology
#1
The presumptions behind the no threshold linear effect model are invalidated.   The hormetic effect and the bystander effect are part of a biological response continuum.  As we suspected, the hormesis effect works against the pro nuclear debate

code;  an alteration of the normal condition is abnormal.  Or, dont poison the world and say its safe
 

A New Paradigm in Radioadaptive Response Developing from Microbeam Research
https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article/50/...A67/915642


"A classic paradigm in radiation biology asserts that all radiation effects on cells, tissues and organisms are due to the direct action of radiation on living tissue. Using this model, possible risks from exposure to low dose ionizing radiation (below 100 mSv) are estimated by extrapolating from data obtained after exposure to higher doses of radiation, using a linear non-threshold model (LNT model). However, the validity of using this dose-response model is controversial because evidence accumulated over the past decade has indicated that living organisms, including humans, respond differently to low dose/low dose-rate radiation than they do to high dose/high dose-rate radiation. These important responses to low dose/low dose-rate radiation are the radiation-induced adaptive response, the bystander response, low-dose hypersensitivity, and genomic instability. The mechanisms underlying these responses often involve biochemical and molecular signals generated in response to targeted and non-targeted events. In order to define and understand the bystander response to provide a basis for the understanding of non-targeted events and to elucidate the mechanisms involved, recent sophisticated research has been conducted with X-ray microbeams and charged heavy particle microbeams, and these studies have produced many new observations. Based on these observations, associations have been suggested to exist between the radioadaptive and bystander responses."
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#2
You may have seen this, Code. From Dr. Busby
@ChristoBusby: @IntechOpen The Secondary Photoelectron Effect: Gamma Ray Ionisation Enhancement in Tissues from High Atomic Number Elements https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/...tomic-numb

https://twitter.com/ChristoBusby/status/...7758330880


       From the paper :
The secondary photoelectron amplification of gamma radiation by different elements in living systems has importance in radiation dosimetry. For some inexplicable reason, elemental absorption has been entirely omitted from the calculations of absorbed dose published by radiation risk agencies like the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) which bases its recommendations of external dose limits on water- and tissue-equivalent phantoms. Furthermore, the phantom photoelectron radioactivity from this effect has considerable application to the element uranium which had been shown in a very large number of publications to have significant genotoxicity. This is particularly the case for internal uranium particles, generated from weapon use, from nuclear power station stacks, from global nuclear atmospheric testing, from nuclear fuel reprocessing and from uranium fuel manufacture. All the official risk agencies model uranium on the basis of its very low intrinsic alpha radioactivity and conclude that it cannot pose the risk that it clearly does.
don't stir up the hot particles
 
Reply
#3
Chris Busby brings forward the Secondary Photoelectron Effect.   It may be a large factor in the toxicity of depleted uranium.  I havent begun to study the ramifications.  Of course he talks about it in your linked article.

Chris Busby has said this before

"It is generally accepted now that the biological effects of exposure are a consequence of either direct damage to cellular DNA or due to induction of instability in cellular DNA through a mechanism involving the detection of ionisation, expressed as an increased concentration of reactive oxygen species (ROS), generated by gamma ray interaction with water. Either way, the essential biological effective target for gamma ray (and indeed all ionising radiation) absorption is not primarily water but is the cellular DNA."

However, there are other researchers who put a great emphasis on effects other than DNA damage, 

Some mention of these other effects in these threads

linear no threshold fails
http://caferadlab.com/thread-3539-post-8...ml#pid8688



Yuri Bandazhevsky made detailed and comprehensive studies of the effects from Cs137 on cell membranes, cell communication and immune systems,  neurological systems...



"Cs-137, accumulated internally  affects membrane cell structures. provokes structure and function disorder in many vital systems. The energetic system and mitochondrial systems are violated.  Cs-137 causes Immune system malfunction, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental retardation, birth defects. and metabolic dysfunction."



'Non cancer illnesses and conditions in areas of Belarus contaminated by radioactivity from the Chernobyl Accident'

http://harmonicslife.net/Blog/2011/GensB...1.2s_E.pdf



In the background is not fallout thread, we touch on Bandazhevsky...about the third post in
http://caferadlab.com/thread-3487.html


effects from fallout may be mediated by the neurological system, the immune system,  mitochondria dysfunctions, cell membrane systems,  eco-systems, and more
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#4
dose-driven models and DNA centric theories are old school


'Low doses and non-targeted effects in environmental radiation protection; 
where are we now and where should we go?'


https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ould_we_go

"The field of low dose radiobiology has advanced considerably in the last 30 years from small indications in the 1980's that all was not simple, to a paradigm shift which occurred during the 1990's, which severely dented the dose-driven models and DNA centric theories which had dominated until then. "

code; emphasis mine

"However while the science has evolved, the application of that science in environmental health protection has not. A reason for this appears to be the uncertainties regarding the shape of the low dose response curve, which lead regulators to adopt a precautionary approach to radiation protection. Radiation protection models assume a linear relationship between dose (i.e. energy deposition) and effect (in this case probability of an adverse DNA interaction leading to a mutation). "

"This model does not consider non-targeted effects (NTE) such as bystander effects or delayed effects, which occur in progeny cells or offspring not directly receiving energy deposition from the dose. There is huge controversy concerning the role of NTE with some saying they reflect "biology" and that repair and homeostatic mechanisms sort out the apparent damage while others consider them to be a class of damage which increases the size of the target. "

"One thing which has recently become apparent is that NTE may be very critical for modelling long-term effects at the level of the population rather than the individual. The issue is that NTE resulting from an acute high dose such as occurred after the A-bomb or Chernobyl occur in parallel with chronic effects induced by the continuing residual effects due to radiation dose decay. This means that if ambient radiation doses are measured for example 25 years after the Chernobyl accident, they only represent a portion of the dose effect because the contribution of NTE is not included."
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#5
"modelling long-term effects at the level of the population rather than the individual. "

Just a nameless number... The part of the equation that permits the nuclear industry to wage war on the genome, every minute of every day, in your water, your bones, your yard, your air, your children...
When they set allowable limits for tritium, did that include the 1000 other plants now operating under that rule, that have since added their own pollution to the equation? When does it start to add up?
What other industry wipes out cities and is allowed trespass and cancer in such a manner?
If they're never really counting the individuals, which they're not, they will never be accountable. To anything. Trespass freely.

Nuclear: Too cheap to meter- Bathe in it.
[Depicts model basking in the sun...]
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Solar; the emerging paradigm that always was Code 0 33 Yesterday, 12:30 PM
Last Post: Code

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)