Human & Experimental Toxicology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Calabrese, E J
Right arrow Articles by Cook, R R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Calabrese, E J
Right arrow Articles by Cook, R R
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 24, No. 5, 265-270 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327105ht523oa

Hormesis: how it could affect the risk assessment process

E J Calabrese

Environmental Health Sciences, Morrill I, N344, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA edwardc{at}schoolph.umass.edu

R R Cook

RRC Consulting, LLC, 3404 Pine Grove Drive, Midland, Michigan, USA

If the hormetic dose-response were accepted as the default dose-response model for risk assessment it could have important implications for environmental exposure standards for noncarcinogens and especially for carcinogens. Most notably it would lead to the recognition that carcinogens act via a threshold process rejecting the concept of linearity at low doses. The hormetic concept also provides agencies with a broader range of toxicologically-based exposure options, which permit a consideration for avoiding harm, as well as possibly enhancing benefits for both normal and high risk segments of the population. By dismissing hormesis, regulatory agencies such as EPA deny the public the opportunity for optimal health and avoidance of disease.

Key Words: biphasic • dose-response • hormesis • J-shaped • risk assessment • U-shaped


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
J. C. Hanekamp and A. Bast
Hormesis in precautionary regulatory culture: models preferences and the advancement of science
Human and Experimental Toxicology, November 1, 2007; 26(11): 855 - 873.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
J. L. Redpath
Health risks of low photon energy imaging
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2006; 122(1-4): 528 - 533.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.Home page
G. A ZAPPONI and I. MARCELLO
Low-dose risk, hormesis, analogical and logical thinking.
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., September 1, 2006; 1076: 839 - 857.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
B. G Callahan
Can hormesis be a default for dose-response?
Human and Experimental Toxicology, May 1, 2005; 24(5): 271 - 273.
[Abstract] [PDF]