free radicals

Chris Driver drierac at deakin.edu.au
Fri Jan 13 13:37:42 EST 1995


Isn't time that we put the radical theory to rest so that we can get on with 
the business of testing theories of aging.

The two pillars of the theory do not hold up: measures of radical damage only 
occasionally correlate with longevity, and free radical trappers do not give 
reproducable lifespan extension. So where is the case?

Furthermore, Drosophila are 100-1000 x more resistance to ionising radiation 
than is h. sapiens. Ionising radiation produces lots of radicals and may 
produce most of its biolocal effects via such radicals. Nevertheless they live 
only about 60-90 days( in my hands), which is substantially less than the 
average h. sapiens.

Second furthermore: There has been no work that I can find where one or more 
physiological deteriorations has been measured and found to be retarded by  
anti-oxidants. 

Incidently I have recently read the article on radicals and aging by Denham 
Harman in the Annals of the New York Acacd of Sci. It is the same article with 
minor permutations, that he wrote in the same journal two years before. Does 
this mean that there has been no work in the area recently?

Chris Driver
Chris Driver, Ph D
School of Biology and Chemistry, Rusden Campus
Deakin University
662 Blackburn Rd
Clayton, VIC, 3168
AUSTRALIA




More information about the Ageing mailing list