BACKGROUND: Hormesis is a favorable biological response to low toxin exposure. In the case of radiation, large doses are carcinogenic, but low doses might be protective. In the current study, we analyzed @entity2 incidence in high-impact radiation states where nuclear testing occurred and compared it with @entity2 incidence in the remaining normal-impact radiation states and the District of Columbia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: @entity2 incidence data were from the American @entity5 Society. @entity286 use 2012 data were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The distribution of states grouped according to @entity2 incidence interval was from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Total background radiation measurements (terrestrial  + cosmic  + radon) were from Assessment of Variations in Radiation Exposure in the United States (2005). Data on high- and normal-impact states were from the National Radiation Exposure Screening _ Education Program (RESEP). Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000, creating RESEP, to help thousands of @entity1 diagnosed with @entity5 and other diseases caused by exposure to nuclear fallout or radioactive materials such as uranium. These @entity1 live in 12 high-impact states where nuclear testing had occurred. High-impact states were not designated according to measurements of background radiation. RESULTS: @entity2 incidence is significantly lower in high-impact states in @entity1 (t  = 5.4 for unequal variance; P  <  .001) and @entity1 (t  = 3.0; P  < .001). The clustering of the 12 high-impact states in the 2 lowest @entity2 incidence intervals (26.8-56.9 and 57.0-63.2) is statistically significant (P  < .001, Fisher exact test, 2-tailed). Because cigarette smoking is ordinarily the most powerful risk factor for @entity2 , multivariate linear regression analysis of the effect of U.S. state group (normal-impact, high-impact, or extra high-impact for Nevada, Utah, and Arizona) on @entity2 incidence in @entity1 and @entity1 was performed. (In Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, @entity1 and @entity1 would have been downwind.) The U.S. state group impact was significant (P  < .001 for @entity1 ; P  = .015 for @entity1 ). The effect of percentage of smokers in the population was significant (P  < .001 for @entity1 ; P  < .001 for @entity1 ). The effect of total background radiation was significant (P  = .029 for @entity1 ; P  < .029 for @entity1 ); like the state group impact, more background radiation exposure was associated with @entity2 . CONCLUSION: Hormesis is still mired in controversy. Yet, it is of vital medical importance because of the continuing debate over whether the low-level radiation doses from diagnostic x-ray procedures, such as computed tomography scans, are harmful. Our analysis adds to the body of evidence suggesting that the linear no threshold model of radiation @entity2 might not be correct. Low-level radiation exposure might protect against @entity2 rather than cause it.

XXXX Hormesis in High Impact States Where Nuclear Testing Occurred.

@entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['cancer', 'Cancer'] @entity286 :: ('4097', 'Species') :: ['Tobacco'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women', 'people', 'men'] @entity2 :: ('MESH:D008175', 'Disease') :: ['Lung cancer', 'less lung cancer', 'carcinogenicity in lung cancer', 'lung cancer']
@entity2 :: (MESH:D008175,Disease) :: ['Lung Cancer']
