[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis

[howard long]

John J,
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)

Howard Long

----- 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

Dec. 28

        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 
<http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/media-overstating-phthalate-risk-say-doctors/>. 
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 
materials: 
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1280349&rendertype=abstract>.

        This link is to the paper (not in PDF): 
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1280349>.   If 
you read nothing else, read the Discussion.  The qualifiers alone "are 
worth the price of admission."

Steven Dapra


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:
>Dec. 28
>
>        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.
>
>Steven Dapra

_______________________________________________
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/