»Ø¸´£º RE: The Dose Makes the Poison - Not Always!

[Guest guest]

Tony and Steve,

Allergic response can be a special case that comply

with 'dose-response', for it definitely shows a

response condition as tony said.

Tony and Steve's words make me recall two cases that

happened to me.

1) When I was in middle school, and ate a kind of

cooked chrysalis a day, which contains much protein,

then I had pruritus and hives. I gave up this kind of

food immediately following my parents' opinion. In

university, I knew that some kinds of protein induced

me to have a special 'antibody', and the

concentration of 'antibdy' would be lower to disappear

if I did not expose to this again. then about 7~8

years later from the occurance of the allergic

response, I tried to eat the food again, and no

allergic response happened again. Therefore, if some

persons are sensitive to a special kind of food, a

good way to be away from this kind of food after the

first/second allergic response happens, then can try

the food after a long interval. If it can not be

helpful, and thoroughly give up this food.

2) About the 'a threshold for elicitation as actually

measured in human volunteers'. during entrance exam

for master program, I drew a question how to get the

dose/concentration of gasoline the could induce the

allergic reaction to skin. My answer was to seek for

the volunteers, and designed differet levels of

dose/concentrations to the exposures. and my reason

was that gasoline was used widely and almost everyone

could expose to it, if the dose from the occupational

exposures can not be accurate as the dose from the

volunteers. But the right answer from the professors

is that the dose should be got from the occupational

exposures, for the medical ethnics was involved in

this problem.

Expect my response be helpful for you.

Regards,

Mark Zhang

--- Tony Havics дµÀ:

> Steve:

>

> You stated:

>

> To use an inapplicable dose-response model to these

> situations is professional negligence in my opinion.

> You can cite all the tox literature references you

> want, but doing so will only strengthen my opinion

>

> Perhaps I can clarify a piece to show you that it

> can for your allergy.

>

> It still follows the classic dose-reponse in the

> sense that a threshold dose is required to result in

> Induction. Induction is not considered a disease

> state.

>

> After Induction (a second or repeated dose), the

> body will elicite a response (Elicitation, a disease

> state) at a lower amount. The dose response curve

> shifts, but one must first have a suffcient dose on

> the induction phase.

>

> See attached figure for example.

>

> The part that is difficult is estimating the initial

> induction dose. It takes extremely good exposure

> and medical data. I hope to get permission to

> publish an example of this (normal level to induce,

> already sensitized to induce on glutaraldehyde;

> draft is completed with statistical analysis on >500

> samples over 10 years) shortly - it's been a long

> time in the making.

>

> Even so, unpublished data that I am aware of

> indicates that their is also a threshold for

> elicitation as actually measured in human volunteers

> (I wish this would get published; however, the

> current de facto ban oin human experimental data is

> probably why the authors have not submitted it).

>

> Tony

>

>

...........................................................................

> " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

> pH2, LLC

> PO Box 34140

> Indianapolis, IN 46234

>

> cell

>

> 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the

> decimal point...any consultant can give you the

> other 10%â„?>

> This message is from pH2. This message and any

> attachments may contain legally privileged or

> confidential information, and are intended only for

> the individual or entity identified above as the

> addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this

> message has been addressed to you in error, you are

> not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this

> message and any attachments, and we ask that you

> please delete this message and attachments

> (including all copies) and notify the sender by

> return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery

> of this message and any attachments to any person

> other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended

> in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege.

> All personal messages express views only of the

> sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and

> may not be copied or distributed without this

> statement.

>

> Re: The Dose Makes the Poison -

> Not Always!

>

>

> In a message dated 6/2/2006 10:37:36 AM Eastern

> Standard Time, ph2@... writes:

>

>

> Strictly speaking it doesn't meet the classic

> definition; however, being inverted it is another

> form on the dose-response relationship.

>

>

>

> Based on the premise that: when there is no dose

> (exposure), there is no response, every

> environmental exposure that results in a health

> effect is a dose-response relationship. So I'll

> give you that - but that's not the point.

>

> I have food allergies. I can eat some foods that

> only cause me to break out in hives when my body

> temperature rises (exercise induced). I walked into

> town to run some errands and get lunch yesterday

> because it was warm and sunny and I wanted to

> " stretch my legs " . I ate the same foods I have

> eaten many times at the same restaurant I go to

> frequently. After my brisk, very warm,

> approximately one-mile walk back to my office, I had

> a totally unanticipated, very miserable, whole-body

> hives outbreak that lasted three hours. What's my

> point? It's that a dose-response model is a useless

> predictor of most real-world environmental health

> effects experienced by real people. And how about

> all those medical side effects? It's quite

> obviously about the individual. How this plays into

> policy and regulations is something that needs to be

> worked out carefully. There certainly are

> unacceptable excessive costs associated with being

> " over-protective " . What is a reasonable

> accommodation?

>

> A running theme in my consulting has been that

> someone with a pre-existing allergy or sensitivity

> that is aggravated in a particular indoor

> environment does not hold someone else to blame.

> But when an individual with no pre-existing

> condition becomes sensitized in an indoor

> environment, they blame those responsible for the

> building and want compensation for being injured

> (i.e., causation). This is a common real-world

> scenario. To use an inapplicable dose-response

> model to these situations is professional negligence

> in my opinion. You can cite all the tox literature

> references you want, but doing so will only

> strengthen my opinion.

>

> Steve Temes

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of

> which has not always been specifically authorized by

> the copyright owner. We are making such material

> available in our efforts to advance understanding of

> environmental, political, human rights, economic,

> democracy, scientific, and social justice issues,

> etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any

> such copyrighted material as provided for in section

> 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with

> Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this

> site is distributed without profit to those who have

> expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

> information for research and educational purposes.

> For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If

> you wish to use copyrighted material from this site

> for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',

> you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

>

>