Health Physics future and "hormesis"

[mgoldman@ucdavis.edu (Dr. Marvin Goldman)]

This is my first use of this server.  I hope I don't regret it.

As current President of the US Health Physics Society, I have been
following with interest the items on this board.

I have two items to share with you.

1. Hormesis--
         I have followed this issue for many years.  My scientific
assessment is that the jury is still out on some of this one.  It is clear
that low radiation doses do stimulate some physiological processes,
especially in plants, and that the outcome in growth or yield does seem to
support a beneficial effect.  The other side of the coin has to do with
cancer or genetic risk, a completely different endpoint in my view.  Except
for a cell test by S. Wollf at UC SF, where small priming doses given to
cells in culture, resulted in a better ability to show resistance to
subsequent larger doses.  The low-dosed cells seem more resistant.  Human
studies of epidemiology show no better health in areas of higher background
radiation--nor was it worse.  No consistent animal radiation cancer studies
hav convinced me that there is a radiation carcinogenesis hormesis effect.
In defense of the idea, I must add that no carefully designed lab studies
had this as the objective.  It is intriguing to think that a small
stimulating dose might "tune up" the genetic defense mechanism to render it
better equipped to handle subsequent molecular lesions.  I'll stop for now
with the plea not to confuse deterministic-graded responses with
stochastic-probabalistic responses in populations.

2. Health Physics and its future--
        I'm in the midst of a self-study of our H.P.Society.  After some 40
years, I'm encouraging us to attempt an indepth fresh look at our HPS
mission, our infrastructure, our efficiency, our options, and our future
potential.  I have little hard data on why most HPS chapter members don't
think it is worth it to be in our national society, even though we really
have relatively low dues.  I worry if we are drifting into becoming a trade
organization while calling ourselves a professional society.  Using today's
jargon, are we too product driven when we should be more market driven? Are
there realistic ways where we can better serve and service our membership?
As the largest radiation protection society, what, if any, kind of
leadership role should we play, while being careful not to overshadow the
other associations?  Have we really done what we can to develop better
international relations, in addition to supporting IRPA?  I realize that
this does not reach all of the HPS society and that it does get some
international exposure.  However it is effective, efficient and it exists.
I invite any of you to share your thoughts with me, understanding that
there is only one of me and all of you.

Thanks,
Marvin Goldman
mgoldman@ucdavis.edu