[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis
hflong at pacbell.net
Sat Dec 29 11:14:08 CST 2007
Regulators who restrict supplemental radiation are as damaging
as regulators wuo required rice be polished (vit B, etc removed).
That gave epidemic Beri Beri (heart failure, nerve pains, etc)
----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 8:42:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis
John Jacobus wrote, "Generally, those who believe in "hormesis"
say that there is a benefitical effect as a blanket statement. If you
disagree, then you are a regulator who is imposing undue restrictions."
If indeed people are saying this about regulators they are taking
a clumsy and heavy-handed approach. Hormesis may prove to be false. To
state the obvious, lack of a hormetic effect does not mean exposure is
harmful. Proponents of hormesis who say regulators who deny hormesis are
imposing undue restrictions are just as wrong as regulators who regulate
(or try to regulate) below a level where no harm has been shown. Or as
wrong as regulators who try to regulate based on junky studies.
To back up again, it seems that the attempt to regulate phthalates
is based on a questionable study published in Environmental Health
Perspectives. See this blog link
It has an excerpt from the editorial column in the LA Times, the one that
Barbara Hamrick mentioned earlier in this thread. If readers go to this
link, scroll down a short distance to an area that is highlighted in pale
orange, and read the three links in this area. In particular, read the
third link (click on "overstated"). It is an article from the Statistical
Assessment Service at George Mason University about how Time magazine
played fast and loose with the truth about phthalate studies.
The key study about phthalates in the context at hand appears to
have been published in Environmental Health Perspectives. [Environ Health
Perspect. 2005 August; 113(8): 1056-1061.] This link is to the abstract,
and to some related
This link is to the paper (not in PDF):
you read nothing else, read the Discussion. The qualifiers alone "are
worth the price of admission."
At 06:03 PM 12/28/07 -0800, John Jacobus wrote:
>If you look at the statements in BEIR VII report, NCRP and ICRP
>publications, they generally conclude that effects at low levels and low
>dose-rates are difficult if not impossible to quantify. Below such
>levels, e.g., 100 mrem (1 mSv), regulations are not imposed or recommended.
>Generally, those who believe in "hormesis" say that there is a benefitical
>effect as a blanket statement. If you disagree, then you are a regulator
>who is imposing undue restrictions.
>Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:
> To back up a little ways, perhaps we should keep in mind that
> even if hormesis were proven to be false that would not mean that low
> level exposure to any specific substance (or to radiation) is harmful.
> Salutary exposure, harmless exposure, and harmful exposure are
> three separate and distinct topics. I haven't been keeping records, but
> I think that too often discussions of whether or not an exposure is
> harmless slide off into an argument about hormesis.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe