Class blog for "The Unstable Nucleus" at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Radioprotective potential of mint: A brief review

from the Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics:

> Abstract

Radiation is an important modality in cancer treatment and estimates are that between one third and one half of all patients will require ionizing irradiation therapy during some point in their clinical management. However, the radiation-induced damage to the normal tissues restricts the therapeutic doses of radiation that can be delivered to tumors and thereby limits the effectiveness of the treatment. The use of chemical compounds (radioprotectors) represents an obvious strategy to improve the therapeutic index in radiotherapy. However, most of the synthetic radioprotective compounds studied have shown inadequate clinical application owing to their inherent toxicity and high cost. These observations necessitated a search for alternative agents that are less toxic and highly effective.
Studies in the recent past have shown that some medicinal plants possess radioprotective effects. Two species of the commonly used aromatic herb mint, Mentha piperita and M. arvensis protected mice against the γ-radiation-induced sickness and mortality. Detail investigations have also shown that the aqueous extract of M. piperita protected the vital radiosensitive organs: the testis, gastrointestinal and hemopoetic systems in mice. The radioprotective effects are possibly due to free radical scavenging, antioxidant, metal chelating, anti-inflammatory, antimutagenic, and enhancement of the DNA repair processes. This review for the first time summarizes the observations and elucidates the possible mechanisms responsible for the beneficial effects. The lacunae in the existing knowledge and directions for future research are also addressed.

Full article:

http://www.cancerjournal.net/article.asp?issn=0973-1482;year=2010;volume=6;issue=3;spage=255;epage=262;aulast=Baliga

Bethany Schmitt

Study: Cellphones Trigger Brain Response

Cellphone use appears to increase brain activity in regions close to where the phone antenna is held against the head, according to a new study, but researchers said the health implications are still unknown.

The study is the first to demonstrate that radiation from the devices has a direct impact on some brain cells, and is likely to fuel a long-running debate over the safety of cellular phones.

"This study shows that the human brain is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation coming out of cellphones," said Nora Volkow, an author on the study and a scientist at the National Institutes of Health. "That is something we need to face."

Shirley Wang has details of a just-released study indicating that cell phone use does have a direct impact on brain activity.

However, "our finding does not tell us if this is harmful or not," said Dr. Volkow, who is also the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Some medical experts have been concerned for years about the possible long-term health consequences of frequent cellphone use. The city of San Francisco voted in June to require cellphone retailers to post the amount of radiation emitted by each phone because of the concern.

But results from studies looking at the health effects have been mixed. Some large-scale studies have found a link between cellphone use and brain cancer, but they haven't been able to show the cancer was caused by cellphone radiation.

The main concern is that radiation from phones could cause DNA mutations or changes in the brain, leading to tumors or cognitive decline. But to date there is no known evidence that the frequency of the waves emitted from phones is powerful enough to cause such changes, according to Reto Huber, a professor at the University Children's Hospital Zurich who has published several studies on electromagnetic fields and cellphones. He wasn't involved in this latest study.

In Tuesday's study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers from the National Institutes of Health and Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York examined the impact of cellphone use on brain activity by measuring the glucose metabolism—how much sugar a cell takes in to fuel activity—of 47 adults, the largest study of its kind to date. They conducted scans while subjects had cellphones held to their left and right sides for 50 minutes. The researchers found that some brain regions near the antenna became significantly more active when a cellphone was turned on and held to the ear, even though the participants didn't actually speak or listen to a conversation.

The increase in brain activity in those regions was comparable to the increase in level of glucose metabolism used by the visual cortex when someone talks—about 8% to 10%, according to Dr. Volkow.

Dr. Huber's group in Switzerland has conducted similar studies by measuring blood flow to brain regions—another indicator of brain activity—and found that there is an increase in flow to regions close to where the cellphone was held.

Mitchel Berger, a neuro-oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, called the findings "very interesting and provocative" but said they don't increase his concerns about the safety of cellphones.

"You could get confused very rapidly and think this finding is equated with a health hazard," said Dr. Berger, who wasn't part of the study. "What it tells us is at the frequencies these phones currently generate, there are [brain] regions that are hyperactive."

Nevertheless, "I think until we really understand the very long-term effects with these newer phones it's not unreasonable to ask people to use headphones or speakers," said Dr. Berger.

If there aren't negative long-term effects, cellphones could be used as a non-invasive way to stimulate parts of the brain in a therapeutic sense, such as for depression treatment, said Dr. Volkow.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704071304576160652541652440.html

posted by In Kyong Lee

Egypt and nukes

How does unrest in North Africa and the Middle East play into nuclear issues?  I have no idea!  But, I am sure it's complex, and I hope we'll learn more over this semester.  I was surprised to see this recent MSNBC article:


MSNBC article on Egypt's weapons development

This seems to suggest that Egypt has been quietly working on WMDs, including nuclear weapons, and that they've even considered pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  This is news to me - the last time I heard much about Egypt's role in nuclear debate, it was when Egypt was advocating for a nuclear free Middle East, back in April:


Christian Science Monitor article from last year about a possible nuclear-weapons-free Middle East

In the article above, they characterize Egypt as :  "the loudest advocate for progress on a Middle East nuclear-weapons-free zone." 

I am not sure how to reconcile these different portrayals!  Got any insights?  Seen any related news?  Post it!

100% Chance of WMD strikes against the U.S.?

Earlier this week, a senior FBI official was quoted as saying that there is a 100% chance that a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) will be used on U.S. soil.  The comment was made without specifying any particular timeline: 100% chance in a year?  In 10 years?  In the entire lifetime of the U.S.?

WMD is a term usually used to discuss large-scale weapons using chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials to cause mass casualties, terror, and economic hardship.  Note that it's important to distinguish between "radiological" weapons (weapons in which, typically, a nasty radioactive material is combined with explosives to make a big, dangerous mess) and "nuclear" weapons, which use nuclear fission and/or fusion to create unparalleled explosive power. 


The article originally written about this FBI official's comment points out that the risk of a true terrorist nuclear attack is the smallest.  Scary to think about these risks, no matter how small!  An important part of reading this article is noting the source:  the author is a well-published conservative commentator and the news site is pretty strongly right wing.  This news story has not been broadly picked up in the mainstream or left-wing media.


Conservative news site Newsmax article on the FBI official's statement

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Scientists build the world's first anti-laser

"Physicists have built the world's first device that can cancel out a laser beam - a so-called anti-laser.
The device, created by a team from Yale University, is capable of absorbing an incoming laser beam entirely.
But this is not intended as a defence against high-power laser weapons, the researchers said.
Instead they think it could be used in next-generation supercomputers which will be built with components that use light rather than electrons."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12453893

Hinkley has been identified by the government as one of eight potential sites for a new nuclear power station.

Here are some articles that reference this new nuclear station.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/somerset/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9401000/9401749.stm (video)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-12199711

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-11215839

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Nuclear waste issue heats up again...

The United States has abandoned plans for the Yucca Mountain permanent repository for highly radioactive nuclear waste from nuclear power plants.  There don't seem to be any clear paths for creating an alternative plan or re-starting the Yucca Mountain plans, although some hope that this will happen soon.   Meanwhile, all of the waste that has been accumulating at nuclear reactors for the last 40 years or so is still just sitting there, often in storage containers that were only meant for temporary use. 

Recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the governmental body responsible for regulating nuclear power plants and waste) has had to change its standards to adapt to the reality of nuclear waste storage.  They have had to declare that it is OK for nuclear waste to sit in temporary storage for as long as 60 years, since there's no alternative in sight.

Several states have gotten together and sued the NRC recently, stating that there should be an environmental review of existing sites before the 60-year temporary storage is allowed.  In some locations, the waste is in decaying, poorly maintained containers at old, defunct nuclear power plants with minimal security.  Nearby residents are nervous to have such high-risk materials maintained indefinitely in their communities.  But where else can we put it?


Time Magazine blog entry on the latest lawsuits over waste storage
New York Times coverage