Radiation

[Carrock]

"Hormesis" is pseudo-science and true propaganda by the nuclear lobby. I regret it has found its way into Wikipedia.

Yeah, right. That is why Wikipedia is able to cite peer reviewed science on the subject.

From the Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis ) Strange cited:

 

The BEIR-VII report argued that, "the presence of a true dose threshold demands totally error-free DNA damage response and repair."

Strange: Do you have faith in totally error-free DNA repair or do you think damaged DNA is harmless or even benign?

 

Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue[citation needed] that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council, that hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility.[citation needed]

Perhaps you were referring to this study of the effects of a widespread accidental exposure to cobalt-60.

A medical study published in 2004 claimed the cancer mortality rates in the exposed population were much lower than expected

I don't think you were referring to this later publication on the same incident, quoted in the Wiki.

There have been several reports concerning the radiation effects on the exposed population, including cytogenetic analysis that showed increased micronucleus frequencies in peripheral lymphocytes in the exposed population, increases in acentromeric and single or multiple centromeric cytogenetic damages, and higher frequencies of chromosomal translocations, rings and dicentrics. Other analyses have shown persistent depression of peripheral leucocytes and neutrophils, increased eosinophils, altered distributions of lymphocyte subpopulations, increased frequencies of lens opacities, delays in physical development among exposed children, increased risk of thyroid abnormalities, and late consequences in hematopoietic adaptation in children.

or this :

 

Given the uncertain effects of low-level and very-low-level radiation, there is a pressing need for quality research in this area.

 

As you seem to claim this Wiki has peer reviewed science supporting hormesis perhaps you would would specify where this can be found on the Wiki.

 

I couldn't find anything that wouldn't be relegated to "Speculations" if it were presented as research on this forum.

[edited for minor errors.]

Edited October 11, 2014 by Carrock

[Strange]

Strange: Do you have faith in totally error-free DNA repair or do you think damaged DNA is harmless or even benign?

 

I am not arguing for radiation hormesis. However, that arguments seems irrelevant. We know that, even without radiation, DNA copying and repair is not error-free. (And, obviously, some changes to DNA are benign.)

[Carrock]

There is a hypothesis that a minimum level of radiation is needed to stimulate repair mechanisms in cells. This wouldn't be too surprising a we have evolved with a certain background level.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

You mention a hypothesis that seems very like hormesis and clearly consider this to be a reasonable hypothesis and not pseudoscience.

 

I am not arguing for radiation hormesis. However, that arguments seems irrelevant. We know that, even without radiation, DNA copying and repair is not error-free. (And, obviously, some changes to DNA are benign.)

I'm not clear what you are arguing for.

I suspect benign radiation induced DNA changes are swamped by the malign changes.

 

 

 

 

From the page I linked earlier:

studies involving low doses and low dose rates have failed to detect any increased cancer rate.

The jury is still out on this.

 

A couple of quotes from the original source of that quote indicative of its quality:

 

The data suggest that a combination of error-free DNA repair and elimination of preneoplastic cells furnishes practical thresholds.

The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of or endorsement by the United States Goverment [sic] or the National Institutes of Health.

[Strange]

You mention a hypothesis that seems very like hormesis and clearly consider this to be a reasonable hypothesis and not pseudoscience.

 

Correct.