re: Hormesis or what?

[MDB2%CRPTech%DCPP@bangate.pge.com]

     In the July 1994 BELLE Newsletter indicates that other groups of 
researchers have independently confirmed Dr. Luckey's theory of Hormesis. See 
the articles entitled "State of Research and Perspective on Radiation 
Hormesis in Japan" and "Spontaneous DNA Damage and Its Significance for the 
"Negligible Dose" Controversy in Radiation Protection."
     The linear-no threshold model was based on conservatism, not on any 
scientific facts.  Hopefully, with studies like Bernard Cohen on the effect 
of Radon in homes, hormesis will finally put to rest the linear-no threshold 
model. The problem looming is that to replace that outdated model with 
something based on science vice being "politically correct". Having observed 
the government industries I realize the likelihood of a "threshold" being 
accepted will put too many lobbyists and lawyers out of work.
     It is rare to find scientists to go out on a limb for the truth when it 
is contrary to whoever is funding them. I have been following Dr. Luckey's 
research for a decade. I will go out on a limb and agree with his basic 
theory as a scientist. I would like to see "evidence" that hormesis is in 
err, but I haven't seen much more than rhetoric or fancy statistical 
manipulations in the last decade in response.
                                   Respectfully,
					Michael D. Bilicska