Re: Radiation Hormesis

["Joan Stovall" <joans@PCEZ.COM>]

I am convinced there is a hormesis effect.



Some evidence:



1.  The Health Physics Journal ran an issue on Hormesis in the late 1980's.

There was a study on cancer rates in india.  The Kerala province has the

highest background levels in India, but has the lower cancer rates than the

rest of India.  India is a developing nation, which means there are less

industrial pollutants to confound the issue.



2.  Ramsar, Iran has very high background radiation levels, but does not

have any elevation of cancer rates.



3.  Principles of toxicology.  Paracelsus elucidated this very well with his

statement, "The dose makes the poison."  Examples:

    a.  Vitamin A is necessary for life, but too much is

potentially lethal.

    b.  Arsenic in drinking water.  New Mexico has  what         are perhaps

the highest average drinking water                 concentrations of arsenic

for the nation (20 to 40             parts per billion).  However, New

Mexico has lower         cancer incidence rates than the rest of the

country.

    c.  Chromium compounds in the diet.  High intake of             chromium

(hexavalent in particular) is linked to                 cancer.  However,

trace levels of chromium                     compounds are a necessary

nutrient.  Chromium in         the diet is linked to regulation of

metabolism.                  Thailand has a greater level of chromium in the

diet,         compared to other countries, but the incidence of

diabetes is less.



Joan Stovall





----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Karl Ellison" <ellison1@localnet.com>

To: <radsafe-digest@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>

Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:01 AM

Subject: Radiation Hormesis





> I'm very curious of list member's opinions on radiation Hormesis. Most

RT(R)

> professionals I talk to either roll their eyes and dismiss it as 'just a

> theory', or it's a new vocabulary word for them.

>

> Dr. Petr Beckmann of "Access To Energy" (http://www.accesstoenergy.com/; a

> pro-science / pro-technology newsletter he authored until his death), gave

> compelling evidence for the beneficial effects of low-level radiation on

> longevity and health.  There are numerous other website references to

studies

> that also espouse positive bio-benefits.

>

> Does anyone have an opinion of this theory? What role, if any does the

theory

> play in exposure mitigation - in policy making or otherwise - none

whatsoever

> (I assume)?  What's the current thinking given the scientific evidence

gathered

> to-date?

>

> Karl Ellison

> Salem, MA

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>

>





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/