*This machine-generated transcript may have errors. If remediation or a manually-generated transcript is needed, please contact NLM Support at https://support.nlm.nih.gov.*

this is a continuation and an extension of the paper 

that was given at,

um,

the U C meeting in Amherst last 

October.

And,

um,

if you need uh certain points 

solicited,

let me know because I'll,

I'll explain them,

but I'm gonna sort of skip over things because I think time is short for a lot of 

people here.

And it is for me,

I know,

um,

very few investigators have been willing to address the 

problem of microwave cataract genesis from a 

biochemical alteration standpoint.

And this lack of appeal seems ne 

neglectful,

especially after it has been reported that a drop in 

ascorbic acid levels in the lens of rabbits was 

the first identifiable reaction to microwave 

radiation and that this occurred before any 

visible signs of damage were present.

Let us briefly review the literature dealing with 

investigations of uh scic acid in 

relation to microwave irradiation or the 

eye Marro and Kenna Sheer in 

1960 reported that reductions in ascorbic 

acid of approximately 20% occurred in the lens of 

the rabbit sometime between 16,

6 and 18 hours close to radiation.

They did not continue their study beyond this 18 hour 

period.

Nor did they investigate any ties between the six and 

18 hours.

They reported no decrease in the sic acid 18 

hours post to radiation in the aqueous humor 

and therefore ruled out the possibility that the 

reduction in the lens was due to a decrease in this 

fluid.

Ken demonstrated decreases in ascorbic 

acid in a radiated rabid lens.

It's cultured in vitro.

However,

she states that the controls also lost 

ascorbic acid but at a slower rate than the irradiated 

lens.

Her results are ambiguous with large differences 

being exhibited for the same culture periods,

white and reported that cultured rabbit 

lenses lost asorbic acid when exposed to microwave 

radiation and that this loss was due to thermal 

increases with gradually increasing power 

densities since portions of the lenses 

during a radiation were exposed to the air.

one may question whether the decreases might have been 

due to a surface evaporation and some cell 

death occurred or the lenses lens capsule became a 

leaky membrane.

Other investigators using labeled culture media 

have found no differences in the uptake of ascorbic acid 

between an exposed and control lens for periods up 

to 19 hours post to radiation.

We recently reported results of a study of ascorbic 

acid values in the vitreous lens and INAs of 

rabbits.

Uh rabbit eyes exposed to single and multiple 

repetitive uh multiple microwave 

radiations lens.

Ascorbic acid levels appeared normal with the exception of 

about a 20% in decrease at one week 

post a radiation for an acute 

exposure.

This drop was primarily coincident with the 

appearance of lens opacities.

Do I control the slides?

Do I just?

All right.

OK.

Is that all right?

Very good.

This is a slide showing the 

effect of a acid in the lens 

at various times.

Post to radi radiation sacrifices from five 

minutes to four weeks.

It will be noticed that Kitta had found 

that at one at 18 hours 

approximately right in this point here 

that they had gotten a 20% drop.

The drop appears in hours to be at 

one week post of radiation.

Oh,

I'm sorry,

at one week,

post radiation and then a 

two weeks and at four weeks appears to be 

within a normal range.

Again,

the dotted lines here are the multiple exposures 

in the,

the,

the solid line is the single exposure.

This is uh that shows the results of 

the AAA,

some of that looks in focus and some 

everything in include uh seems to be within a 

co control range.

And so therefore,

uh no effect seems to microwaves have no effect on the 

Vitria of cervic acid levels.

In slide three.

Here we have data accumulated on the 

uh the uh acres humor 

and these levels indicate that the escort was 

decreased in this fluid in an acutely 

exposed eye.

And these levels do continue to decrease from 

five minutes after the insult until a low was reached at one week.

Post radiation,

that's from this period to this period.

Recovery to normal values occurred by two weeks,

post of radiation and were still within control limits four 

weeks after a radiation.

These results on the lens are not in agreement with those 

reported by K Male and Kia.

A comparative analysis of the data at 

18 hours poster radiation on the lens of score bait 

collected by Mooli.

And that obtained by us showed that there is a significant difference 

at the 99% confidence level between the right 

irradiated I and the left control I for a 

score bait levels in their study.

But this difference is not apparent for this post radio a 

radiation period.

In our study,

the irradiation facilities,

equipment,

exposure conditions and analysis 

mythology used in their study 

is the same as that used in this recently reported 

investigation.

However,

in their study,

the facility for radiation and the Nucleation of the 

eye was located in a suburb while a 

laboratory for scic acid analysis was a downtown 

location.

As a possible reason for the discrepancies.

It was felt that the timing left between sacrifice of 

the animal and removal of the eye.

Subsequent transportation of it to a cross town 

laboratory and analysis of the specimen could be 

of long duration compared to the entire operation of 

sacrifice to section sample preparation 

analysis steps being performed in sequence.

And at the same laboratory for our 

study elapsed time from decease of the 

animal to completion of analysis of all I 

parts was 58 plus 58 plus 

or minus eight minutes for all 

76 animals in the study.

One can assume that analysis time for both studies 

was the same but that transportation would delay 

the S ay studies for for the original study.

More to test the delay hypothesis.

Alo watts of a known standard ascorbic acid solution were 

taken at hour intervals over a period of five 

hours and tied in the same manner as an actual sample.

The rate of decrease of dye used was 50 

units per hour or the equivalent of point oh 19 

mg of ascorbic acid per hour.

Over the first three hours and 20 units of dye 

per hour or oh oh point oh oh seven mg of 

ascorbic acid after three hours.

This means that after one hour,

approximately 20% of the ascorbic acid for titration 

in this method has become unavailable.

A statistical analysis of the 76 duplicate 

acids of lenticular mere material from 

irradiated and controlled eyes showed no significant 

difference with an average time between replicate analysis of 

2 to 3 minutes.

When the second essay of lungs material is 

delayed by one hour for both 

control and irradiated eyes.

There is still no significant difference in 

the uh significant difference due to the 

delay.

This shows you the original analysis 

done at time zero,

which I must say is 

about 58 minutes.

The lens was the last part of the eye that we um 

uh analyzed 60 minutes.

After that,

this is really no significant difference with 

seven degrees of freedom.

And uh at that level,

one must therefore assume that the elapsed 

time due to transportation of samples was not a 

causative factor in obtaining differing results.

Gluta thion.

Another reducing substance is found in high concentration in the 

lens of the eye.

This substance shows early decreased levels in ionizing 

radiation produced cataracts.

It also reacts with the dye used in the titration 

method for ascorbic acid.

However,

its rate of reaction is much slower than for ascorbic 

acid to test whether it was acting as an 

interference in our titration.

We add an amount of it normally present in the lens to a 

standard known solution of a sate differences 

in tita were not observed in solutions containing it from those 

with no gluth present 

in the course of our assay of a score in the in 

the eyes part in the eye parts,

we weigh the lens immediately after a Nucleation and 

just prior to homogenization in a protein 

precipitant solution.

This offered us the opportunity to observe the relationship 

between the weight ratio of the irradiated and 

unirradiated lens to the severity of the damage 

produced by the radiation observed,

observed just prior to sacrifice of 

the animal and removal of the eye for analysis.

It also enabled us to determine 

weight ratios at times after exposure.

But before any vis visible damage would be apparent by 

slit lamp examination such as at five minutes 

and a half hour and 12 hours and 18 hours post to 

radiation.

Those eyes had no react observable 

reaction to them.

This comparison was performed for those animals 

exposed to both a single acute dose and a repetitive sub 

subthreshold dose.

Minimal,

moderate and maximum response are categorized by Doctor 

Copter.

In his previous studies,

minimal responses included small vesicles or Granules 

along and near the post suture.

Cortical banding,

moderate responses responses showed 

um 

these uh small circumscribed opacities 

occurring at the ends of the post suture.

This happens to be,

it looks like a vesicle right up in here.

The maximum type of response 

was and the whole involvement of the whole posterior 

castle.

A comparison of the weight ratio of the controls to mean 

ratios of the various degrees of un observable 

and observable damage shows that at 95% 

confidence level,

there is no significant difference in the ratios for 

all categories for both single and multiple 

exposures.

A T value of 1.76 

with 18 degrees of freedom was obtained when the greatest 

differences are compared that between the 

single maximal response and the controls.

And I'm talking about this,

which is the most obvious as compared to 

this.

And there is no significant difference between those 

and there is no significant difference in any of these.

So the weight of the lens or the severity of the damage has 

nothing to do with the weight of the lens.

Morale and Kitta had raised the question in their 

study as to whether an increase in temperature was the 

cause of the observed drop in ascorbic acid in the 

lens.

The scor acid is quite unstable and is 

destroyed by heat in an alkaline solution.

The P H of the aqueous humor is about 

7.57 to 

7.6.

They checked the lens asorbic at a half hour and six 

hours after a radiation and found no drop in ascorbic 

acid and therefore ruled out heat 

as a cause of the reduction.

They also tested the levels of score bait in the A in 

the aqueous at 18 hours close to radiation 

and found no change had occurred,

ruling out the possibility that a score bait was 

unavailable to the lens and therefore resulted in the 

lenticular decreases in 

our experiments.

The acre had risen an average of 

10.1 degrees C at the end of an acute 

exposure.

As stated pre previously,

we found reduced levels of sate at five minutes 

post to radiation and these levels continued to 

decrease up until one week to 

check whether the heat alone was directly responsible for the 

drop observed in this fluid.

The eyes of rabbits were heated without the use of 

microwaves and acid levels determined 

the procedure was as follows.

An aqua of aqueous was removed from the left control 

eye of an a,

an aet size rabbit and analyzed for aic 

acid.

The ears of the rabbit were immersed in a hot water 

bath at 50 degrees for 40 minutes.

Thereby heating the aqueous of the eye via the 

circuitry system of the animal.

At the end of the heating period,

an aqua of aqueous fluid was removed from the right eye and 

analyzed for a acid as an 

additional test,

the action of the heat on the a as 

as an additional test of the a the action of the heat 

on the aqueous aquas of this fluid were 

removed from both eyes of an anesthetized animal.

One aqua was heated to 55 degrees and both 

aquas were analyzed for moving.

There is essentially uh 

these are the in vivo heating.

And by that,

I mean that the ears were heated 

from the left eye,

the aqua was removed prior to heating 

from the right eye.

It was removed after heating and analyzed.

And there is essentially no difference 

in here except the possibility of a slight increase 

actually with the heated eye.

This was in vitro heating and this is when the 

both the,

both the ques was removed from both eyes 

and analyzed.

And there's essentially no difference there at all.

These are the controls.

It just as comparison here on the uh ratios on the control.

These results tend to negate the theory that heat 

causes reduced levels of ate in the acres 

with resultant lens decreases.

However,

the results do strengthen and lend support to the theory that 

counteracter genesis is a secondary 

reaction and that a primary and initiating action 

for microwave damage is not a direct effect on the 

lens of the eye or the fluids that bathe 

it,

but a absorption of energy at some other sensitive 

site which later is reflected as a damaged 

lens.

This theory might possibly be tested 

if it were possible that uh 

the lens itself could be 

directly uh 

irradiated without peripheral tissue 

being irradiated.

Future studies in this,

we hope to perhaps investigate the 

role of the ciliary body or ciliary 

epithelium in reducing its COVID appearing in the 

aqueous.

And that uh this is perhaps the best way to do 

this is with radioactive tracer techniques.

Uh Another investigative area is the role that 

ascorbic acid plays in cataract genesis.

And this might be demonstrated by using 

uh by studies using the guinea pig,

which does not synthesize the ascorbic acid except through 

dietary means.

And I don't know,

but I just sort of thought of this at the end.

Uh I'm I'm not sure whether anybody has ever produced 

cataracts in,

in rat lenses,

but uh it's an interesting observation 

that there is absolutely no ascorbic acid 

in the aqueous of a rat lens and the three 

mg per percent in uh in the 

aqueous.

Um I would appreciate 

if Doctor Ravis,

if he's here,

his studies have closely coincided with what 

we've been doing and I think that he came to somewhat some,

the same conclusion that possibly the sill 

body or Elli is the 

site that should be looked at.

I appreciate if he'd like to comment on it.

Is he here?

I guess so.