This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Chapman, P M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chapman, P M Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Defining hormesis: comments on Calabrese and Baldwin (2002)

EVS Environment Consultants, 195 Pemberton Avenue, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7P 2R4; pchapman{at}attglobal.net

The definition of hormesis should not include non scientific judgments as to beneficial or harmful effects. Evaluating the significance of hormesis is a separate issue that ultimately requires risk:risk comparisons, particularly since the evolutionary basis for hormesis appears to be Lamarkian rather than Darwinian. It is arguable whether ‘hormesis’ is the correct umbrella term for all low-dose exposure responses, in particular those at higher organization levels than single species, or whether it includes arousal responses.

Key Words: evolution • exposure responses • hormesis • risk

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 21, No. 2, 99-101 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327102ht218oa


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Elliott A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 1, 2008; 27(7): 529 - 538. [Abstract] [PDF]