Literature DB >> 18648595

Radiation hormesis: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

T D Luckey1.   

Abstract

Three aspects of hormesis with low doses of ionizing radiation are presented: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is acceptance by France, Japan, and China of the thousands of studies showing stimulation and/or benefit, with no harm, from low dose irradiation. This includes thousands of people who live in good health with high background radiation. The bad is the nonacceptance of radiation hormesis by the U. S. and most other governments; their linear no threshold (LNT) concept promulgates fear of all radiation and produces laws which have no basis in mammalian physiology. The LNT concept leads to poor health, unreasonable medicine and oppressed industries. The ugly is decades of deception by medical and radiation committees which refuse to consider valid evidence of radiation hormesis in cancer, other diseases, and health. Specific examples are provided for the good, the bad, and the ugly in radiation hormesis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BEIR VI; cancer; deception; health; radon; therapy

Year:  2006        PMID: 18648595      PMCID: PMC2477686          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.06-102.Luckey

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dose Response        ISSN: 1559-3258            Impact factor:   2.658


  16 in total

1.  Prolongation of life span associated with immunological modification by chronic low-dose-rate irradiation in MRL-lpr/lpr mice.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Ina; Kazuo Sakai
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Hormoligosis in pharmacology.

Authors:  J F TOWNSEND; T D LUCKEY
Journal:  J Am Med Assoc       Date:  1960-05-07

3.  Historical blunders: how toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right.

Authors:  E J Calabrese
Journal:  Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand)       Date:  2005-12-14       Impact factor: 1.770

4.  [The occurrence of hormesis during gamma-irradiation of developing rat pups].

Authors:  V P Ruda; A M Kuzin
Journal:  Radiobiologiia       Date:  1991 May-Jun

5.  Dose-response relationships for female radium dial workers.

Authors:  R E Rowland; A F Stehney; H F Lucas
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Suppression of thymic lymphoma induction by life-long low-dose-rate irradiation accompanied by immune activation in C57BL/6 mice.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Ina; Hiroshi Tanooka; Takeshi Yamada; Kazuo Sakai
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 7.  A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Authors:  Anita Gustavsson; Birgitta Osterman; Eva Cavallin-Ståhl
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.089

8.  Antitumor effect of whole-body X-irradiation: possible role of an X-ray-sensitive T suppressor cell population.

Authors:  I Hellström; K E Hellström
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 1.066

9.  Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosis.

Authors:  A B Miller; G R Howe; G J Sherman; J P Lindsay; M J Yaffe; P J Dinner; H A Risch; D L Preston
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1989-11-09       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Roentgen therapy for infections: an historical review.

Authors:  L B Berk; P J Hodes
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  1991 Mar-Apr
View more
  30 in total

1.  Whole body imaging in the diagnosis of blunt trauma, ionizing radiation hazards and residual risk.

Authors:  J P Kepros; R C Opreanu; R Samaraweera; A Briningstool; C A Morrison; B D Mosher; P Schneider; P Stevens
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 3.693

2.  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

3.  The cancer mortality in high natural radiation areas in poland.

Authors:  Krzysztof Wojciech Fornalski; Ludwik Dobrzyński
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 2.658

4.  Optimal conditions of LDR to protect the kidney from diabetes: exposure to 12.5 mGy X-rays for 8 weeks efficiently protects the kidney from diabetes.

Authors:  Jie Cheng; Fengsheng Li; Jiuwei Cui; Weiying Guo; Cai Li; Wei Li; Guixia Wang; Xiao Xing; Ying Gao; Yuanyuan Ge; Guanjun Wang; Lu Cai
Journal:  Life Sci       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 5.037

5.  Mean cancer mortality rates in low versus high elevation counties in Texas.

Authors:  John Hart
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 2.658

6.  Prospectus. Survival across the fitness-stress continuum under the ecological stress theory of aging: caloric restriction and ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Peter A Parsons
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 2.658

7.  Cancer mortality in six lowest versus six highest elevation jurisdictions in the u.s.

Authors:  John Hart
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 8.  Seed priming with non-ionizing physical agents: plant responses and underlying physiological mechanisms.

Authors:  Kuntal Bera; Puspendu Dutta; Sanjoy Sadhukhan
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 4.570

9.  It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm--one that acknowledges hormesis.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2007-09-30       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  Ion mobility-enhanced MS(E)-based label-free analysis reveals effects of low-dose radiation post contextual fear conditioning training on the mouse hippocampal proteome.

Authors:  Lin Huang; Samanthi I Wickramasekara; Tunde Akinyeke; Blair S Stewart; Yuan Jiang; Jacob Raber; Claudia S Maier
Journal:  J Proteomics       Date:  2016-03-26       Impact factor: 4.044

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.