SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human & Experimental Toxicology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Calabrese, E J
Right arrow Articles by Baldwin, L A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Calabrese, E J
Right arrow Articles by Baldwin, L A
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Radiation hormesis: the demise of a legitimate hypothesis

E J Calabrese

Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, N344 Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

L A Baldwin

Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Massachuseffs, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

This paper examines the underlying factors that contributed to the marginalization of radiation hormesis in the early and middle decades of the 20th century. The most critical factor affecting the demise of radiation hormesis was a lack of agreement over how to define the concept of hormesis and quantitatively describe its dose-response features. If radiation hormesis had been defined as a modest overcompensation to a disruption in homeostasis as would have been consistent with the prevailing notion in the area of chemical hormesis, this would have provided the theoretical and practical means to blunt subsequent legitimate criticism of this hypothesis. A second critical factor undermining the radiation hormesis hypothesis was the generally total lack of recognition by radiation scientists of the concept of chemical hormesis which was markedly more advanced, substantiated and generalized than in the radiation domain. The third factor was that major scientific criticism of low dose stimulatory responses was galvanized at the time that the National Research Council (NRC) was organizing a national research agenda on radiation and the hormetic hypothesis was generally excluded from the future planned research opportunities. Furthermore, the criticisms of the leading scientists of the 1930s which undermined the concept of radiation hormesis were limited in scope and highly flawed and then perpetuated over the decades by other ‘prestigious’ experts who appeared to simply accept the earlier reports. This setting was then linked to a growing fear of radiation as a cause of birth defects, mutation and cancer, factors all reinforced by later concerns over the atomic bomb. Strongly supportive findings on hormetic effects in the 1940s by Soviet scientists were either generally not available to US scientists or disregarded as part of the Cold War mindset without adequate analysis. Finally, a massive, but poorly designed, US Department of Agriculture experiment in the late 1940s to assess the capacity for low dose plant stimulation by radionuclides failed to support the hormetic hypothesis thereby markedly lessening enthusiasm for research and funding in this area. Thus, the combination of a failed understanding of the hormetic hypothesis and its linkage with a strong chemical hormesis database, flawed analyses by prestigious scientists at the critical stage of scientific research development, reinforced by a Cold War mentality led to marginalization of an hypothesis (i.e., radiation hormesis) that had substantial scientific foundations and generalizability.

Key Words: hormesis • low dose • stimulation • radiation • ß-curve

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 76-84 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/096032700678815611


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
D Henschler
The origin of hormesis: historical background and driving forces
Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 1, 2006; 25(7): 347 - 351.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
O. Renn
Hormesis and risk communication
Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2003; 22(1): 3 - 24.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
E J Calabrese and L A Baldwin
Defining hormesis
Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 2002; 21(2): 91 - 97.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
E. J. Calabrese and L. A. Baldwin
The Frequency of U-Shaped Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature
Toxicol. Sci., August 1, 2001; 62(2): 330 - 338.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
S. Rattan
Applying hormesis in aging research and therapy
Human and Experimental Toxicology, June 1, 2001; 20(6): 281 - 285.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Advertisement