Talk:Radiation hormesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Theory?

Is this really a theory? Wouldn't Hypothesis be more accurate?--Sinus 17:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Formally theory is the correct term. Hypothesis is not used scientifically.WolfKeeper 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depleted Uranium

There are 3 links concerning this area of study in the depleted uranium page.

[edit] Evidence against

User 75.4.206.172 edited the evidence against (Revision as of 10:06, 13 January 2007) section to delete one of the dot points. What was the justification? This looks like it is backed up by a legitimate article from a reputable source. I would like to reinstate it. --Dashpool 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dashpool, I'm trying to bring this article into line with Wikipedia's attribution policy. The removed link may or may not be self published. It certainly isn't a journal article as it sits on the website, but the website may have an editorial process and be reliable, I can't tell. I've also editied the `evidence' section to include fact tags and hope they can be added in the near future.

  • I removed the bullet that reads, "no chromosomal damage was detectable in animals with high radiation counts living around Chernobyl" because this article is about hormesis, not lack of cromosomal damage.
I'm unclear about this reason. Could you elaborate?WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the article regards radiaiton hormesis. This claim says not that cromosomal damage was reversed, lowered, or even not increased. It also does not say that crromosomal damage is the primary pathway for radiation damage.Pdbailey 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the ramsar link reference because it is obviously self-published (see WP:ATT again) he does link to a variety of journal articles, perhaps one of them says what he is trying to say.
In fact self-published sources are not forbidden provided the author is notable; his credentials give prima facie evidence that he is notable on this topic.WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that self-published sources are not forbidden. But the person has to be an expert. If this person is an expert, than why are six of the seven citations grey litterature? The only one that even would be locatable in the US is the health physics sosciety publication, but it's preliminary. The real problem here is exceptional claims require exceptional sources and this portion of the policy reads,``claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. See the headline NAS and NCRP reports for the prevailing view of the relevant academic community.Pdbailey 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the link from the lower than expected cancer in Chernobyl because the website has as a headline on the mainpage a link to an article titled, ``Ahmadinejad Seeks Asylum in U.S.! [1] without any indication on the main page that the article is humor. Is this a humor site? the politics of this site at the least are not neutral.
That's not right. NPOV is reached by including diverse opinions, not only including neutral opinions. You can't remove a reference only because you think they are not neutral, or because they link to a web page that is (clearly marked) as humour.WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's set aside the humor piece, and again I'll point to the Template:WP:REDFLAG. Pdbailey 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough; you have provided evidence that it is not a trustworthy source.WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


WolfKeeper and others, can I get a response on tcs? Again, my contention is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources and tcs doesn't cut it for disagreeing with UNSCEAR, NAS, and NCRP. Pdbailey 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I added an NPOV tag to the section on evidence because (1) it is mainly evidence against and this is in discord with the NAS and NCRP reports and (2) there are no citations for the ``for claims. This second claim is rectifiable and hopefully will be in the near future, but the first one deserves some thought.Pdbailey 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I just readded the NPOV tag. I think it should stay in place until the citations can be found. The issue is that the claims are exceptional and Template:WP:REDFLAG. A portion of the policy reads,``claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. and the top poriton of the article reads,

Radiaiton hormesis has been rejected by both the National Research Council's (part of the National Academy of Sciences) [2]and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by U.S. Congress) [3].

A report by the National Academy especially is almost the definition of the prevailing veiw of the relevant academic community. Pdbailey 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/d/Talk%7ERadiation_hormesis_a40b.html"