I wonder mutations are generally associated with cancer and not aging.
Suppose you irradiate mice frequently during their entire lifetime with high but sublethal radiation does.
Will the animals show sympoms similar sto premature aging?
Posted 25 June 2007 - 07:50 PM
Posted 25 June 2007 - 08:48 PM
Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:04 PM
Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:42 PM
...but i have noticed high cancer rates in the area.
Edited by olarsson, 26 June 2007 - 06:32 PM.
Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:59 PM
If radiation causes cancer, then it certainly is associated with aging since cancer (or, more specifically mutations within cells) is one of the components of aging.RAdiation without doubt couses cancer but why is there no strong association between radiation and aging?
Posted 26 June 2007 - 03:03 AM
Posted 26 June 2007 - 05:11 AM
Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:54 AM
I'm afraid this is completely wrong. Mutations are a practically negligible part of aging, and there is no evidence that radiation affects normal human aging. People have been accidentally exposed to 100 times typical background radiation levels at a low dose rate for years with no obvious effects on health. As a medical physicist, I must point out that unnecessarily exposing people to such high doses is not ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) and therefore not recommended. But that people have been exposed to high doses of radiation for decades without experiencing accelerated aging refutes the notion that typical human radiation exposures contribute to aging.But anyway, I think it is definitely involved in aging, since a large component of aging is the accumulation of cell damage (which sounds good to me), I think that enough of the wrong radiation would be triggering the exact same sort of deterioration in your cells that would normally occur over a longer period of time due to "aging" I don't see how it couldn't bring about premature aging.
Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:38 PM
But that people have been exposed to high doses of radiation for decades without experiencing accelerated aging refutes the notion that typical human radiation exposures contribute to aging.
Edited by olarsson, 26 June 2007 - 07:59 PM.
Posted 26 June 2007 - 08:31 PM
One of the problems of assessing radiation risks in humans is that at cummulative doses less than 100 years worth of background (3 mSv per year), biological effects barely climb out of the noise. There are only a few historical instances of large groups of people getting more radiation than this to their whole body. One is A-bomb survivors, which is the most widely used dataset for extrapolating human radiation risk. Another is this amazing incident in Taiwan where hundreds of people where exposed to large sublethal doses of radiation for years because of radioactive isotope contamination of the rebar used to build their apartment buildings.bgwowk do you have a source for this claim?
There have been lots of animal radiation radiation experiments. Generalized aging is not on the menu of known bioeffects of radiation. Look, people get acute doses of *thousands* of times annual background radiation to specific parts of their body (or even the whole body for bone marrow transplants) during the course of cancer therapy, and they don't turn into old men and women. This is because mutations are not a big part of aging.There must be papers were mice are exposed to chronic high, but sublethal radiation.
Posted 27 June 2007 - 12:21 AM
Posted 27 June 2007 - 01:54 AM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users