radiation hormesis

In 2001 a one page addendum on radiation hormesis was added.

The idea of radiation hormesis is considered unproven by regulatory bodies.

However, they cautioned that it is not yet known if radiation hormesis occurs outside the laboratory, or in humans.

This theory is called radiation hormesis.

Many papers on radiation hormesis.

Their results have been used in support of the radiation hormesis hypothesis, wherein low-dose radiation may actually be beneficial for health.

Whether low-level radiation is protective against cancer, a theory called radiation hormesis, is debated in the scientific community.

Recent topics: global warming, ozone depletion, radiation hazards and radiation hormesis."

Radiation hormesis - dosage threshold damage theory (unproven)

Calculations showed that the fallout from each takeoff would kill between 1 and 10 people, (a claim that has been disputed: see radiation hormesis).

Exposure to radon, a process known as radiation hormesis, has been suggested to mitigate auto-immune diseases such as arthritis.

Radiation hormesis was not observed in a study that also recommended that Ramsar does not provide justification to relax existing regulatory dose limits.

Initially, there was some evidence that this kind of low level, chronic radiation is not quite as dangerous as once thought; and that radiation hormesis occurs.

The evidence that small amounts of some types of ionizing radiation might confer a net health benefit in some situations, is called radiation hormesis.

In 2004 the United States National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) supported the linear no threshold model and stated regarding Radiation hormesis:

It is much too early to draw statistically significant conclusions, but so far radiation hormesis has not been observed, and data from Ramsar does not provide justification to relax existing regulatory dose limits.

Radiation hormesis proposes that radiation exposure comparable to and just above the natural background level of radiation is not harmful but beneficial, while accepting that much higher levels of radiation are hazardous.

On March 16, 2011, discussing the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Coulter, citing research into radiation hormesis, wrote that there was "burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine."

It opposes two competing schools of thought: the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are harmless, and the radiation hormesis model, which claims that radiation at very small doses can be beneficial.

Proponents of radiation hormesis typically claim that radio-protective responses in cells and the immune system not only counter the harmful effects of radiation but additionally act to inhibit spontaneous cancer not related to radiation exposure.

It is believed that bathing one in such waters can actually be good for one's health, although there is not a scientific consensus on whether doing so is actually detrimental or helpful to one's health (see Radiation hormesis).

The notion of radiation hormesis has been rejected by the National Research Council's (part of the National Academy of Sciences) 16 year long study on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.

Debate on the applicability of Linear no-threshold model versus Radiation hormesis and other competing models continues, however, the predicted low rate of cancer with low dose means that large sample sizes are required in order to make meaningful conclusions.

Radiation hormesis stands in stark contrast to the more generally accepted linear no-threshold model (LNT), which states that the radiation dose-risk relationship is linear across all doses, so that small doses are still damaging, albeit less so than higher ones.

The concept of radiation hormesis is relevant to this table - radiation hormesis is a hypothesis stating that the effects of a given acute dose may differ from the effects of an equal fractionated dose.