Re: Hormesis - Theory and Observation

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

GlennACarlson@aol.com wrote:
> 
> While considering the alleged hormetic effect of exposure to radon, the
> relative absence of data supporting a similar alleged effect for radiation
> exposure from other sources, and the truism (almost cliche) that "radiation

Actually, just recently the abstracts of several papers have been sent
that further confirm non-radon radiation hormesis effects, e.g.,
Parsons, and Goraczko, and papers on a reduction in tumors and
improved recovery from liver damage. They're in the radsafe archive. 
You can get the abstracts from the NIH Medline using PubMed also.

Such studies go back more than 100 years. But the detailed
immunological results now reported demonstrate the underlying
immunological actions that cause these most evident effects.  

Schrader at U.Mo reported in "Electrical Engineering" in 1896, in
response to a statement by JJ Thompson that Roentgen's rays would not
be bactericidal, that by injecting diphtheria into Guinea pigs, most
of the irradiated animals survived, while the unirradiated were all
dead in 24 hours.  

For the next 50 years such results were repeatedly found, and
radiation was successfully used to treat infections, inflammations,
and for wound healing, among other applications.  Unfortunately, too
many medical applications went by the "more is better" philosophy even
though research knew otherwise.  Such applications were dropped when
antibiotics were introduced as the 'magic bullets,' and rad protection
became the primary justification for radiation biology research.  See
the abstract of a 1991 review by Berk and Hodes at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-2/3/3/Rev%202%201233list.html

In addition, the papers by Calabrese and Baldwin that report on the
historical foundations of the scientific validation of hormesis were
sent to radsafe.  Surely with your intense interest in this topic you
have read these papers, at least the BELLE Newsletter versions that
are just a link away:
http://www.belleonline.com/home82.html

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

> is radiation," perhaps, we should also consider the following advice from
> British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington whose observations verified
> Einstein's prediction that gravity bends light:
> 
> "Observation and theory get on best when they are mixed together, both
> helping one another in the pursuit of truth.  It is a good rule not to put
> overmuch confidence in a theory until it has been confirmed by observation.
> I hope I shall not shock the experimental physicists too much if I add that
> it is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational
> results that are put forward until they have been confirmed by theory."  Sir
> Arthur Eddington, "New Pathways in Science," 1935.
> 
> Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
> glennacarlson@aol.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html