Literature DB >> 12624121

Radiation hormesis, or, could all that radiation be good for us?

Jennifer L Prekeges1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Nuclear medicine technologists work under significant radiation protection constraints. These constraints are based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation paradigm, which was developed in the 1960s and was based largely on the deleterious effects of radiation as they were understood at the time. More recently, the theory of radiation hormesis, or a beneficial effect of low-level exposure to radiation, has gained recognition. This article reviews the history of attitudes toward radiation, describes the radiation hormesis hypothesis, examines some of the evidence that supports it, and suggests ways that radiation protection regulations might change if the hypothesis were to become accepted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12624121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med Technol        ISSN: 0091-4916


  10 in total

1.  Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published.

Authors:  Sergei V Jargin
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  Effects of acute low doses of gamma-radiation on erythrocytes membrane.

Authors:  Sherif S Mahmoud; Eman El-Sakhawy; Eman S Abdel-Fatah; Adel M Kelany; Rizk M Rizk
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 3.  Reducing radiation dose in emergency computed tomography with automatic exposure control techniques.

Authors:  Mannudeep K Kalra; Stefania M R Rizzo; Robert A Novelline
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2005-05-12

4.  Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: biophysical aspects.

Authors:  Sergei V Jargin
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  The stimulatory effects of topical application of radioactive lantern mantle powder on wound healing.

Authors:  S M J Mortazavi; M R Rahmani; A Rahnama; A Saeed-Pour; E Nouri; N Hosseini; M M Aghaiee
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 2.658

6.  Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: calculation of a latent period for tumors with unproven radiation etiology.

Authors:  Sergei V Jargin
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  Cancer mortality, state mean elevations, and other selected predictors.

Authors:  John Hart; Seunggeun Hyun
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-06-25       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  Radiation hormesis: historical perspective and implications for low-dose cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Alexander M Vaiserman
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 9.  Is the Linear No-Threshold Dose-Response Paradigm Still Necessary for the Assessment of Health Effects of Low Dose Radiation?

Authors:  Ki Moon Seong; Songwon Seo; Dalnim Lee; Min-Jeong Kim; Seung-Sook Lee; Sunhoo Park; Young Woo Jin
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 2.153

10.  UV-A Irradiation Activates Nrf2-Regulated Antioxidant Defense and Induces p53/Caspase3-Dependent Apoptosis in Corneal Endothelial Cells.

Authors:  Cailing Liu; Dijana Vojnovic; Irene E Kochevar; Ula V Jurkunas
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 4.799

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.