[ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

Mohan Doss mohan.doss at fccc.edu
Fri Feb 22 13:12:35 CST 2013

Hi Victor and All,
     Since the regulatory agencies are influenced by international 
advisory bodies in setting the policies, we should probably appeal to 
these bodies to change their recommendations. The simpler the arguments 
we present against the current officially recognized concepts, the 
better the chance that the advisory bodies may consider changing their 
recommendations.  In this connection, you may be interested in the 
Editorial entitled   "The importance of adaptive response in cancer 
prevention and therapy" that has been published in Medical Physics:  
Med. Phys. 40, 030401 (2013).  Below is the link to the journal website 
from which you can view the link to the article, and download it. Though 
the journal is subscription based, Editorials are free to access for 
        With best regards,

Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Medical Physicist,
Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
Fax:   215 728-4755
E-mail:  Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu

On 1/29/2013 2:59 PM, Victor Anderson wrote:
> Good Morning,
> The evidence for hormesis is certainly there.  I too believe that LNT is no
> longer a viable basis for radiation safety.  Being an ex-regulator, for me
> the next big question is placing some numerical values on radiation safety
> standards.  Given that X Gy of dose will not cause any harm, should that be
> the new radiation safety standard?  This brings as least two questions to
> mind: 1) Given biological variability, what is a safe upper limit? and 2)
> How does the new standard work for different types of radiation, rates
> (gy/y, gy/hr?), mode of delivery?  We also need to look at a new unit as the
> Sievert and REM were both pegged to probability of death by cancer.  So, if
> say 1 cGy of gamma radiation has no risk of cancer, then the risk based dose
> is zero (0 cSv).  Suppose there is a region where there is some protective
> benefit mixed with some chance of harm?  A fine kettle of fish. The reason I
> ask is that the next step is to petition the NRC for a rule change.  The
> bigger question is what kind of rule change?  With this is mind, I would
> propose an an hoc committee to work on this problem.  Any takers?  If so,
> please e-mail me.
> Victor Anderson, CHP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott, Bobby
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:10 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Cc: Miller, Mark L; Jerry Cuttler; Dobrzynski Ludwik; Payne,Steven S.
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"
> Hi all,
> I came across an interesting 7 September 2012 article on the web by
> Vincent Giuliano titled "Radiation Hormesis."  The link for the article
> follows:
> http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2012/09/07/radiation-hormesis/
>   I thought some of you may like to know about the article.
> Best wishes,
>   Bobby
>   B. R. Scott
> Senior Scientist
> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
> 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
> Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
> Phone: 001-505-348-9470
> Fax: 001-505-348-8567
> E-mail: bscott at LRRI.org<mailto:bscott at LRRI.org>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such information.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list