Talk:Radiation hormesis

message: The section on the Nair et al. study regarding radiation and cancer risk in Kerala, India grossly misrepresented the study's results. Whoever wrote this section included the negative cancer risk statistic from the abstract, but neglected to include the confidence interval or the following sentence that clarifies that the study shows absolutely no statistically significant relationship, positive or negative, between cancer risk and cumulative radiation dose. I have attempted a quick fix, but the study, correctly interpreted, may not even belong on the page as it has nothing to do with radiation hormesis. Unless it's a good idea to keep it on there as a rebuttal to claims that the study does support it? I'm not sure about whether this would be appropriate as I'm new to WP editing. Any recommendations? Mjwood 26 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section should really be removed, the study is flawed/biased to start with. Naturally occurring thorium only emits alpha particles, IE wont break through human skin. No damage is done unless you eat or breath this stuff. The study was also done over a time period of 10.5 years, any kind of exposure can take up to 3 decades to manifest. A very poorly done study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.126.239 (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about the Kerala study? 

message: The article states: "Therefore, the Linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure."
Isn't that a bit strong? Denying benefits does not equal using a linear dose-toxicity curve. You could also say that lower doses have less/negligible impact, without claiming there's something like hormesis going on. tijmz (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me like you're saying the same thing. The linear no-threhold model already does imply that lower doses are less damaging, in direct proportion to how much lower they are. But I agree with your change to the sentence that said, "There is no safe level of radiation exposure." "Safe" is a highly subjective term. Perhaps if it said, "There is no 100% safe level of radiation exposure," but even that is misleading, like saying, "You can never be sure you won't get struck by lightning within the next minute." Fnordware (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LNT model 

message: Regarding the reports' claim that 40% of laboratory studies show radiation hormesis, I had first written that it was "Based on research sponsored by the nuclear industry", then, following comments by another contributor (see previous section in this talk page) I subsequently edited it into to "Quoting results from a litterature database research sponsored by the electricity generating industry". This sentence has now been edited into "Quoting results from a literature research", the sponsorship by the industry being considered as "weasel words" by a contributor. 
Well, the quoted Duport's paper clearly acknowledge the grants that allowed for the creation of this litterature database: 
This work was supported by grants from Electricite de France, the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, the US Department of Energy, COGEMA Resources Inc and MDS Nordion. 
So does the project page from the International Centre for Low Dose Radiation Research at University of Ottawa where this database was established: 
The project is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (USA); Electricité de France (France); Cogema Resources, Inc. (Canada); Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) (Japan); Candu Owners Group (COG) (Canada); the Canadian Nuclear Society (Canada); and MDS Nordion (Canada).
This is known as full disclosure, and actually rather shows great probity from Duport. I thus have no will to use "weasel words". Still, Duport discloses these information for a reason: they show potential conflicts of interest, and it is now considered standard practice within the scientific litterature that the readers should be made aware of the potential spin such conflicts of interest can induce. I don't see why the same would not hold true for Wikipedia. Wikipedia readers don't need to know about potential conflicts of interest? Why?
ConradMayhew (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of financial sponsorship of the Duport's report 

message: Thorium occurs all over the earth's surface in common rocks such as granite, so it is incorrect to say that Kerala has 1/3 of the world's thorium.  Rather it is generally considered to have around 1/3 of the world's economically recoverable thorium reserves. See Thorium#Reserve_estimates.CharlesHBennett (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerala's monazite sand  

message: I never understand these terms.  How can something be 20x smaller?  I mean a box can be 20x larger.  A box could be 20% smaller. but nothing can be 20 times lower.  I read the article that was cited the words used were "3.5 deaths per 100,000 person-years–only 3 percent of the rate (i.e., 116) expected for the general population".  from that we could say "the death rate was 3% of the expected" or "there was a 97% decrease in cancer related mortality.  Can we correct these confusing terms so useful information can be conveyed.Mantion (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the "20x" comment for the reasons given in the edit summary.  However, in everyday English the phrase "20 times lower than expected" would be readily understood as meaning one twentieth of what was expected.  But it would not have been wrong for you to change it from the former to the latter for clarity, if you'd wanted to. I left the "1.5 times smaller/less" language, changing it only to use the actual language of the study cited.  In ordinary English, that will normally be understood to mean two thirds as much.  I agree that might confuse some, but that's the language of the study.  Unless you can examine the actual data of the study to confirm exactly what was meant, you shouldn't change it. - Embram (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.5 times smaller, 20 times lower.... 

message: The above quote doesn't make sense in the context of neither LNT nor hormesis. On LNT, the DNA repair doesn't have to be perfect for LNT to be invalid; if it varies but a little with dose rate, LNT is invalid. On hormesis, if DNA repair is not perfect, there can still be a definate real threshold, namely the point where hormetic effects are equal to damage effects. That's the whole premise of hormesis. Other than DNA repair there is also meiosis and apotosis which highly likely also varies in effectiveness with dose rate (as any bodily process does).
The BEIR argument seems to miss the entire point about hormesis, and it doesn't help defend LNT either.
Siphon06 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The BEIR-VII report argued that, "the presence of a true dose threshold demands totally error-free DNA damage response and repair."" 

message: The quote on the dogs study mentions 75 mGy/d as a low dose rate.
Let us be clear on this. 75 mGy/d is NOT a low dose rate, by any standard. It is over 27 Sieverts per year even if only external gamma radiation. 
Low dose rates, per hormesis science, is generally regarded as below 2 mSv/day. 
Siphon06 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  low dose rate vs high dose rate 

message: The conclusion of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ may be worth adding to the text, citing the article of course. 
The article is already well reverenced but one more won't hurt. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source 

message: The entire article is hyperfocused on radiation doses and whatnot, but an animal's systems know nothing about nuclear physics. They just react to the state of the animal's cells. If the animal is under stress cells will die and divide faster and more mutations will happen. Octaazacubane (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation is not the only source of mutation