Talk:Radiation hormesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.196.15 (talk • contribs)

As you'd expect... many of the claims of the danger of depleted uranium munitions are based on applying the LNT to ingested alpha emitters. The logic goes, if ingesting a strong alpha emitter causes cancer, then ingesting a weak alpha emitter such as U-238 must cause cancer too, only more rarely. But not everyone agrees with this logic of course, see radiation hormesis. Andrewa 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Andrewa, alpha emitters are least likely to be exhibit to a hormetic response curve (see Hall's Taylor award lecture[1]), and I don't know why 4.2 MeV is low energy, it's pretty high in my book. Pdbailey 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
True, I didn't say low energy, and I suggest you take the advice of whoever did (;-> with a grain of salt. But the decay energy is only part of the story. You also need to take account of the rate of decay, which in the case of Uranium-238 is very low. Perhaps that's the source of the rumours that U-238 is a particularly nasty alpha emitter, which it certainly is not when compared to say Radium-226 which has a similar decay energy, or Polonium-210, 5.4 MeV, halflife 138 days... Now that is a nasty beast.
As to whether alpha emitters are likely to exhibit hormesis or other non-linearity, your link reads in part In this context the assumption of a threshold is hazardous, and the linear no-threshold hypothesis still appears to be prudent and conservative. I don't see how anyone would doubt that, or that the LNT is valid in some contexts (I know some have). But where, as with DU munitions (or as another example the question of whether nukes are a sensible alternative to coal), you're comparing radiation risks to other risks, it's better to be realistic rather than prudent and conservative. Too often, you find people comparing LNT-based estimates of radiation damage to realistic estimates of other risks, which proves nothing. If you could find a similar conservative approach to the other risks, then the comparison would at least be valid, but it still wouldn't be as useful as the realistic approach. Andrewa 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[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 exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 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)

After one month of no response, I'm removing the claim. It would be nice to have the other unreferenced claims dealt with so we can remove the NPOV tag. Pdbailey 04:42, 23 April 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 exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 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)

Regarding the claim that, "Some studies have shown that moderate internal exposure to plutonium results in a reduction of the risk of cancer.[9]" Could someone point to where in the article this claim comes from? you may want to read the conclusions (available at an unlikable isi site). They start, "There is evidence for an association between radiation exposure and mortality from cancer" which makes it an odd inclusion for a hormesis support claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pdbailey (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I appear to be the only one interested in this NPOV tag, but I'm trying to edit the section so that it's less objectional after about 3 months of it being there with the tag. I would think that those who built the seciton would like to do this, but I want it to get done eventually. Pdbailey 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pdbailey I now found your statement several times, that because a threshhold theory is in discord with the NAS reports, a citation needs to be an exceptional source to be accepted as a "valid" source. While I understand your argument I am really wondering what exactly the NAS reports say. As far as I can tell from the WP articles it simply seems to state that there is no conclusive evidence for a threshold theory. Does it actually state that there is strong evidence _against_ a threshold theory ? I find the statement "there is no conclusive evidence for a threshold theory" quite weak. I find this a lot weaker than the phrase "the threshold theory is in discord with the NAS report", because this phrase seems to imply that there is strong evidence against this theory. As far as I understand, NAS uses the LNT, because it is a reasonable and above all conservative estimation. My meaning: You try to estimate conservative, because you don't want to underestimate the risk. This doesn't mean at all that your estimate is a good approximation. As far as I have now read, there also is no conclusive evidence for the LNT model. It is used, because it is simple and conservative. (A threshold model is definitely not conservative, so it might underestimate the risk; there also seems to be no easy theoretical explanation for a lower threshold, so it also is not simple. Radiation hormesis seems to be a very optimistic model...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.29.169 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that the page is expanded and includes many far superior references (and more will be added), I think that the NPOV tag can be removed. If not, let me know what improvements need to be made. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I still have many objections. The section reads like a plaintive child wrote it and many of the studies are deeply flawed. i.e. Thompson goes out of its way to publish an indication of its shortcomings in the abstract, the fact that having a level of education is associated with protection for radiation suggests massive omitted variable bias is possible. In addition, to all the other problems that these kinds of reports have (radon levels are correlated with which part of a town or state or the country one lives in, which is correlated with wealth, which is correlated with health status). In effect, radon levels need to be randomly assigned for a good report. In addition, the report is subject to the same criticism as every other epidemiological report on radon--that the non-linear behavior of the interaction between smoking and radon make small errors in reporting of the smoking variable have large much larger errors in the outcome (this is in the NCRP report), i.e. the report has already been credibly criticized. Pdbailey (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, NPOV is your opinion. If articles do not agree with your strong belief that Radiation Hormesis is bunk, then you think the article is not in a NPOV. Whereas, true NPOV reflects all current opinion in the scientific community, and that includes opinions that are at odds with your user page position statement. I have no opinion on whether or not Radiation Hormesis is true, I don't know, I'm just reflecting what is said elsewhere. Reinterpreting and proffering personal opinions on a peer reviewed paper is not appropriate, if you believe you have a reference that contradicts the articles I added (e.g. Thompson), then add it. I believe there is a Iowa study that agreed with LNT? That could be added to balance Thompson. --Diamonddavej (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, the basic principle that I'm operating under (that you can disagree with) is that a consensus document is vastly more authoritative than a peer reviewed paper. This isn't absolute, I would agree that a paper in a journal like Science of the Journal of the American Statistical Society published after the consensus document might give one pause, and should appear in an article, but short of that, I think the best approach for Wikipedia is to wait for revisions to the consensus documents. Pdbailey (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that consensus documents are a higher class of source than individual papers. Though much improved, there is still sufficient bias to warrant the NPOV tags. I am going to try to block out some time this weekend (possibly but hopefully not later) for a merge/overhaul, but in the meantime you might try WP:Third opinion to get a neutral outsider's look at the sourcing claims. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that the "consensus" studies (e.g. BEIR VII) extended the high dose exposure/risk relationship to the low dose region where there is no strong supporting evidence or data; they assumed LNT. Therefore, the "consensus" studies offer only a hypothesis about the low dose region, they do not represent evidence against radiation hormesis (or threshold). The decision to use LNT was born from a lack of data and uncertainty, thus fearing the worst is safer. Following this observation, I added an admonition to the article. I hope it placates some concerns. I emphasised that radiation hormesis is a hypothesis and I describe the features distinguishing a theory and a hypothesis; an important distinction that can escape lay people. I think emphasising that radiation hormesis is a hypothesis and the claims outlined should be treated with caution is a good way forward. We cannot promote one or other position when dealing with hypotheses. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, I do not particulary like the admonition because it appears to talk down to the reader. How about this as a path forward. The article uses the lede as is, then the "rejecting" section but renamed to the more mild (and accurate) non-acceptance. The second should also have quotes from every body, because I think they all split hairs to a certain extent on this and neither flat out reject, but admonish current acceptance in practice. Then we point to three recent articles that would probably have to be considered the next version of the consensus documents (i.e. the Thompson HPS article) in a final section titled "ongoing debate". Pdbailey (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the page and let me know what else needs to be done. I read a paper yesterday that said the 1950's B-move genera with giant radiation exposed monsters were spawned when a few erroneous early experiments on the effects of radiation appeared to cause plants and animals to grow bigger. I also looked though a junk science book an ex-girlfriend gave me a few years ago "Kicking the Sacred Cow" by James P. Hogan (that I never read) and sure enough he has a chapter on Vitamin-R. I think the article deserves a popular culture section. --Diamonddavej (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, The page looks better, but I would add two more criteria--not that you have to agree-- (1) there be far fewer counter points in the controversy section (I've suggested three but am open to more if they are compelling), (2) I would add that they should focus on the time from 2000 and forward because this is around when the cutoff for consideration in the majority of the consensus documents. Pdbailey (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing we do agree with is that there is little support for Radiation Hormesis, but I think we differ on how to reflect this. Yes, normally when writing articles one gives minority points of view as little space as they deserve (thus avoiding undue weight). If this article was about the shape of the earth it would be wrong to dedicate half the article to Flat Earth theory. However, look at the Flat Earth page. Explanation Neutral point of view explains - "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them." Radiation Hormesis needs a detailed article about a minority point of view with a long, controversial and interesting history. Despite its length, I'm confident the article can still leave the reader a clear understanding that is has little support. I agree with culling some pre-2000 articles but Cohen (1995) must remain (with counter examples). --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, you make a good point. I would say that in Jimbo's classification scheme, you could probably name a prominent proponent for radiation hormesis (please do). That said, should this be the page, or should it be another page? I'll try to see if I can find a good example article in this vein (you can see my question over on the discussion of the undue page). Pdbailey (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I read your discussion on the undue page. T. D. Luckey is/was an ardent proponent of Radiation Hormesis (he appears retired or deceased now). His 1991 book on the subject provoked the current state of interest[3]. Rather then name a page Luckey and Radiation Hormesis, noting PSWG1920's comments, Luckey was/is one of many workers in this field and Radiation Hormesis predates him e.g. infamous Radium Elixirs, Radon Spas etc. Instead, I would like to copy my material to Radiation Homeostasis and expand that page. This page should remain highly skeptical, as it deals with important official public heath policies that should not be undermined. The minority view page could be used as a safety valve, where biased hormesis enthusiasts can be redirected. The page of course will maintain that Radiation Homeostasis is unsupported; after all it will make uncomfortable reading for proponents, I plan to include Radium Elixirs, Radon Spas and 1950s B-movies. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, I think that an article of that nature makes a lot of sense and would be a real valuable addition to Wikipedia. However, I also think that Radiation Hormesis is in that middle ground where the main article needs to take it seriously and talk about why smart people continue to believe in it. From my perspective (I know that I have like one note here, but stay with me fore just one more sentence), none of the consensus documents reject it out of hand and all appear to leave open the possibility that future research will find solid hormetic effects. To me, the current article needs two changes (1) the french consensus document should appear in the section currently titled, "Non Acceptance of Radiation Hormesis" (2) the section titled, "Ongoing Debate" shouldn't just be a list of linked articles that appears to come out swinging, but instead focuses on some of the more compelling recent research (if briefly). I think the 75mGy/day dog reference from BEIR clearly outlines the dangers of not considering the whole story for many of the pro-hormesis papers. Pdbailey (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ach, no! Please do not turn Radiation hormesis into a POV-fork of Radiation hormesis, especially not while there appears to be a (admittedly limited) consensus that these articles deal with substantially the same topic and should be merged. Historical examples of marketing based on the idea and its expression in popular culture sound great, though. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about POV-forks, clearly separating the article is not an option. So we will have to expand the Radiation Hormesis; I suggest the following headings, "non acceptance, historical developments (Radium elixirs, Radon Spas, growing appreciation of dangers), resurgent interest/ongoing debate and cultural influences. Yes, the French study should go into the "Non Acceptance..." section. I also agree that the list of articles should be trimmed. Ko et al. is a good paper to retain and focus on too, I read a criticism of it which I will add. Finally, my college library access ends on the 15 April, as I recently submitted my thesis. I will not have journal access after that date. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cadmium

User:DopefishJustin Has just made the Cadmium seciton a new section. Can someone please tie it in with the rest of the article. What does Cadmium have to do with radiation? Pdbailey 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I found an interesting article, not quite on radiation hormesis though

...but still (somehow) related and could go some way into explaining the mechanism behind the effect:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070422222547data_trunc_sys.shtml

Chernobyl Fungus Feeds On Radiation

...Two types - one that was induced to make melanin (Crytococcus neoformans) and another that naturally contains it (Wangiella dermatitidis) - were exposed to levels of ionizing radiation approximately 500 times higher than background levels. Both of these melanin-containing species grew significantly faster than when exposed to standard background radiation...

...Interestingly, the melanin in fungi is no different chemically from the melanin in our skin, leading Casadevall to speculate that melanin could be providing energy to skin cells....

-G3, 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

G3, this is one study that found one thing and then the PI made vast speculation that is unsupported by their evidence. This is the PI tipping his hand on future research to get more funding. So, the same investigator will likely continue to look down this road and may find something in the future. Nevertheless, I think you original conclusion that it doesn't relate to radiation hormesis is correct. Pdbailey 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added more References

I have added several references on the side of the radiation hormesis. I note that one paper is from a journal with dubious track record. These references were added in a short space of time, I can find more papers from reputable journals. Chen et al. (2004) from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons was cited 17 times by other authors who did not reject the paper based upon the dubious forum in which it was published. Additionally, it was followed up in 2007 with a paper in Dose Response. I have only looked up papers on radiation hormesis over the last few hours, I gained the impression of a recent renaissance in interest with little criticism of the theory. --Diamonddavej 07:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamonddave, the Chen et al. claims (now made in Dose-Response) are still extraordinary, and Dose-Response doesn't yet have subscriptions from universities that keep huge radiation subscriptions (i.e. look in the University of Chicago online catalog, and the Argonne National Lab online catalog for it, and it is not in either). This suggests to me that at the lease, the journal isn't a high profile place, which is what these kinds of claims need. Pdbailey 14:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that their claims were so odd they could not get published, except in fringe journals, which is a pity. Both papers have 14 authors, typical of an important paper in a good journal. I think it should remain but with the note that they were published in fringe journals. Also, there is this paper in the American Journal of Roentgenology that briefly comments on the unexpected Taiwan cancer rate - Cohen B.L. 2002. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 179(5):1137-43 who writes...

From national Taiwan statistics, 173 cancers and 4.5 leukemias would be expected from natural sources, and according to the linear no-threshold theory, there should have been 30 additional leukemias. However, a total of only five cancers and one leukemia have occurred among these people [32].

Link to Cohen paper. [4] and Chen et al. 2007 [5]

Also, here is a letter written to New Scientist about Chen et al. (2004). [6] --Diamonddavej 12:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The paper makes an extraordinary claim that has an obvious explanation that the authors completely ignore and then acts as if they (literally) found the cure for cancer. The reason it's a bad paper is that the experimental design makes no sense. In an experiment you have a treatment and a control group and you compare the two to get a "treatment effect." The way you get a drug approved in the United States is to compare people in what's called a double bind experiment wherein neither their doctors, nor the patients know weather the patient is in the treatment nor the control group--this is the gold standard and it is rarely reached. In an observational study you are forced to make approximations for a control group. Huge amounts of work has gone into how to do this in a credible way. One method is propensity score if you are interested. However, at a minimum one is often compelled to find another group that has some similarity on some characteristics to the treatment group (i.e. the same age breakdown, same socioeconomic class, or just something). But these authors have not done that. They have compared one subsample of people to the population as a whole. To highlight the absurdity of this, the atomic bomb survivors who were young at the time would indicate that it was protective to get irradiated if compared with the population as a while because they are just now reaching the age at which most people get cancer. Because of this same effect, being poor appears to be protective to cancer because it's associated of dieing of other ailments before cancers can develop.
But all this is neither here nor there for what we are discussing today. Wikipedia has policies related to the scope of the project, and it's verifiability. These claims fail to meet the standard of that policy. Pdbailey 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, that sounds right. However you would need to find a reference to that effect, in order to remove it, or better, add that comment to the article, otherwise it's OR.WolfKeeper 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was forced to revert your edits pdbailey, not only did you seem to have removed referenced material, but there were sentences that ended up being cut off in the middle. I feel that the article is/was currently supporting an anti-hormesis effect, and I would like to see more material pro and con (mainly con), and explaining why claims to hormesis were unlikely, rather than removing claims of hormesis. Certainly though, removing material you don't agree with is wrong if it is at all well known; we are supposed to capture disagreements; that's what NPOV is about.WolfKeeper 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper. I can't say I appreciate either the form or execution of the rv, let me explain why I made the edit in little pieces for you.
  1. I removed the evidence for section because it was so paltry. It suggested that the only evidence for LNT is one study about airline pilots, this was adding to the POV, so I removed it. This falls under being bold.
  2. I removed the Ramsar self published reference because this violates wikipedia policy.
  3. I removed the Taiwanese steel because of clearly documented reasons above (see the pagraph starteing "But all this"), you may also want to read WP:REDFLAG. In specific, these authors claim to have literally found a way of preventing most cancers, this is a huge red flag.
  4. I removed the second ramsar reference for the same reason--it's a tall claim that disagrees with the UNSCEAR, NCRP, and NAS papers on the topic. While the fact that it's in only one publication is already enough to reject the claim according to the above redflag reference, the publication in question isn't subscribed to by any large academic organization that I could find, suggesting it is at the very least not at the center of its field.
  5. being as how the whole Ramsar sentence now had no reference again (making it about one year) I also removed the section.
I'm not sure which part you thought was original research, but lets just breakup discussion into the above bulleted items. If you disagree, please continue discussion on any one. If you agree with them, please undo the rv, or any portion of it. Pdbailey 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can comment on point 3 and 4. One example: A response by Rossi (1998)[7] to an article that pitted arguments for and against Hormesis (in Medical Physics); Rossi says "there can be no doubt that small ~and sometimes not so small! radiation doses can reduce the "natural" incidence of some cancers. This has been clearly demonstrated in experimental radiobiology ~e.g. Ullrich and Storer (1979)1" and "We have shown (Rossi and Zaider, 1997)3 that x-ray doses up to 2 Gy do not cause lung cancer in man and most likely reduce it. Similar findings were made for leukemia in A-bomb survivors at doses up to 0.3 Gy (Shimizu et al. 1992)4. Clearly, the argument that slightly elevated radiation levels provide a protective affect against some cancers has been presented previously, several times and in peer review, thus Chen et al. and the second Ramsar Ref. are not WP:REDFLAG. --Diamonddavej 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, I'm not saying that any claim of hormesis isn't acceptable, just these. The papers you just referenced would be much better than what's currently on the page. Let's focus on Taiwan. Before we continue lets make sure we agree on the logic you're presenting. (A) Rossi asserts that hormesis is possible for specific tissues at low and sometimes at moderate doses, backed up by epidemiological evidence in specific organs in a well controlled study. (B) Chen et al. claim a 97% reduction in all cancers in an observational study. (C) Therefor Chen's claim is not dramatic. Or am I missing something? Pdbailey 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, on 3, there is a paper (by the same authors?) in Lancet (the top medical journal in Europe) on this topic, why not include that paper? Pdbailey 04:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Only W.L Chen appears both on the Lancet paper and in Chen et al. (2004 & 2007), but I'll check again. I propose adding the Lancet paper and several other papers that discuss chromosomal damage and thyroid problems, thus giving more balance to that section (papers can be found on W.L. Chen's university webpage) webpage.[8] I'd like to see the Chen et al. claims remain; it has been referenced, discussed in print and even one TV documentary was made - Horizon or Equinox. Also, most significantly, it is claimed the victims received more radiation individually and collectively then Japanese H-bomb survivors![9] Chen et al. claims, however odd, are notable and deserve inclusion. Btw, the data they used was based on a victims support group report. And here is a 2004 letter by Luan Yuan-Chi written to the International Commission on Radiological Protection, where he give more details and again claims lowered cancer rate, 12.8/100,000 v's 156.01/100,000 [10] There are many letters on the ICRP website titled "low dose extrapolation of radiation related cancers", a good source to gauge consensus[11] Here is a little gem...
"But there is also the indirect argument suggesting that somehow (and I have no idea how) a low level of exposure to radiation stimulates the organism's overall efficiency of repair (including for non-radiation-induced SSB damage single-strand break, which dominates) such that a reduction in that background dose could increase the overall incidence of cancer at the clinical level, and conversely. In lay terms, I guess the argument is an analogue of the notion that health and fitness correlate with exercise." - G Ches Mason, IAEA.[12]
Finally, you may be interested in reading this 1999 email by Luan Yuan-Chi, where he complains about suppression of his results.[13]
I've only investigated this theory over the last week, we maybe witnessing a paradigm shift --Diamonddavej 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, I think we fundamentally disagree on one fact, is this a case of redflag. To me, the claim that most cancers can be averted with a readily available therapy falls into that category. The above email appears (to me) to only give more evidence to this claim, this paper is obviously way out of the mainstream. I think theres some sort of mediation process on wikipedia, I'll see if I can learn more and perhaps get it started. Pdbailey 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree with that course. It maybe out of the mainstream but it has been quoted and talked about so much it is notable. My reasoning is that people should see that its wrong (if it is wrong) rather then suppress it and have it go unchallenged. There are several possibilities - its removal, a separate page that discuses the Taiwan incident away from hormesis, retention in the hormesis article with further papers that present evidence of harm. In the mean time I'll email a Taiwanese environmental group to find out their take on this. --Diamonddavej 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I just found this email discussion, that ripped apart the Chen-Luan ascertain that there was a reduction in cancer, looks like it was a cover-up. I now agree that it should be removed.[14]
"Dr Chang has told me that 131 cases of cancer, including 46 cancer fatalities, were observed over 18 years amongst 7,271 persons registered, via the National Cancer Registry Program in Taiwan, as the exposed population. He suggests that this may be greater than the number of cancer cases in a similar population that had not been exposed to the radiation - particularly hemato-lymphoid malignancies and all types of leukemia in men, and thyroid cancers in women."[15]
--Diamonddavej 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the study was referenced from a fairly recent Horizon program on Chernobyl, so we probably need to include it in the article.WolfKeeper 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
WolfKeeper, what is a "Horizon program"? Do you have a link? Pdbailey 19:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I remember seeing the same Horizon episode that referenced the Taiwanese study. Horizon is a long running science documentary series that is shown in the UK on the BBC, according to the BBC - "Horizon is BBC Two's flagship 50-minute science documentary series. In September 2004 it celebrated its 40th anniversary and it continues to enjoy outstanding critical acclaim. Recognised as the world leader in its field, it regularly wins a sweep of international science, medical and environmental film accolades, and has recently won the Royal Television Society Award and the Prix Italia."
The quality of science reporting in the UK has worsened greatly in the last decade or so, it seems that science has lost respect and trust there. I believe this is in large part because so many third level graduates in media industry are from Arts & Humanities, who have no science and critical thinking training. Here is a link to Horizon on the BBC.[16]--Diamonddavej 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a review programme content, from the producer.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the comments on that page odd because I recall reading in the UNSCEAR report how the observed superlinearity was probably caused by increased screening and doctor response. But maybe that was just thyroid cancer. Pdbailey (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation Homeostasis

The page on Radiation homeostasis should be merged across, and redirected to this page.

Unfortunately, I don't really know how to use the Wiki software to that extent.AWeishaupt (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The instructions are at moving and merging pages. I agree that this should be done and have so proposed below. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

The pages Radiation hormesis and Radiation homeostasis appear to deal with substantively the same topic, and should I think be merged. Should consensus to merge be reached, I would prefer the "hormesis" title, as it appears slightly broader and more commonly used. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


agree a merger is a good idea. The two articles overlap substantively and to the extent that they do not now, each would benefit from the expansion. Pdbailey (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] super linear effects on IQ?

I think we need to incorporate the findings in [17] but they do not appear to include a dose estimate except to say that it is less than 10 mGy and that the average effect is over 30 IQ points / Gy (for those exposed in the 8-25 week window). Pdbailey (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] should this article list a number of journal articles that argue for Radiation Hormesis

There is a central question here: should this article list a number of journal articles that argue for Radiation Hormesis? The argument against is that there is strong scientific consensus against radiation hormesis and plenty of consensus references so that we do not have to go digging through the literature to find every article on the topic--which is simply not apropos. I propose removing all but a few (say three) of the articles that argue for radiation hormesis and moving that section to the end. Pdbailey (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a pretty clear case of WP:WEIGHT - a neutral reader should leave this article knowing that there is negligible scientific debate as to the health effects of any type or level of radiation exposure. I would hazard that there is a good chance that none of the supporting articles meet the reliable sources bar for well-designed studies (certainly that applies to the few I have seen}, and these primary sources should be disallowed except in extraordinary cases. Instead, we should summarize secondary reliable sources writing about what certain other people think about low-level radiation exposure. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary Elderef, the debate is extremely lively and divisive. If you spend an hour reading the literature you will find that trench warfare is underway - indicative of an active paradigm shift. For example, the respected French Academy of Sciences released a report in 2005,[18] that acknowledge that 40% of laboratory studies have observed radiation hormesis and they describe several biological mechanisms that can force a departure from LNT. That said, I agree that most of the weak articles should be removed and only a few examples from respected sources should remain. These should include the laboratory studies of Ko et al. (2008); Durante et al. (2003) Pathak et al. (2007) and the epidemiological study of Thompson et al. (2008). Additionally, the Thompson et al. (2008) paper could go well with a description of Bernard Cohen's notable 1995 Health Physics paper, as the downward risk/mortality slopes in both papers, I read, overlays almost perfectly.[19] Bernard is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can undermine his evidence against LNT.
B.L. Cohen, 1995. "Test of the Linear-No Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products". Health Physics 68. 157-174.[20]
--Diamonddavej (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Diamonddavej, I don't have access to HPS, but I used to. Can you lookup Eric Hall's Lauriston S. Taylor lecture and tell me how far down he is able to find evidence for LNT? It is not in the abstract, but it is the lowest LNT value I recall seeing. Pdbailey (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Eric's paper is not available online, it is 1998 vintage i.e. before Pdf. You could obtain the paper by library photocopy or buying a hard copy of the article. Interestingly, here is a group proposing an Ultra-Low-Level Radiation lab for studying the biological effects of no radiation.[21] This will likely will settle the debate over LNT, hormesis etc. Careful, their 4 page Pdfs are 39 megabytes! --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Drug that confers Radioprotection

Science just published a paper by Burdelya et al. that describes a drug that has radioprotective (radiation hormesis) activity. It is CBLB502, a polypeptide obtained from Salmonella flagellin that "binds to Toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5) and activates nuclear factor–kB signaling" - thus decreasing rates of cell death during radiotherapy. Bhattacharjee suggest that the drug, or drugs like it, could be used to save lives during a nuclear catastrophe.

Burdelya, L.G. et al., 2008. An Agonist of Toll-Like Receptor 5 Has Radioprotective Activity in Mouse and Primate Models. Science, 320(5873), p.226-230.[22]

Bhattacharjee, Y., 2008. MEDICINE: Drug Bestows Radiation Resistance on Mice and Monkeys. Science, 320(5873), p.163.[23]

--Diamonddavej (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How is the related to the article? Pdbailey (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)