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
