Why does conventional wisdom ignore hormesis?
By Bill Sacks and Greg Meyerson
What we are about to say flies in the face of the conventional wisdom. There is no automatic reason for anyone to believe or trust our comments, so we provide some sources at the end that allow the reader to do further investigation. And for the sake of brevity we will for the most part make categorical statements, claims which rest on voluminous evidence that the reader may have to study, just as we have done, in order to get over the speed bump that the conventional wisdom invariably represents. Therefore consider this an introduction to the topic of radiation “hormesis,” intended to open doors, rather than an attempt to convince–-an impossible goal of a single commentary, particularly under the circumstances.
In light of repeated assertions that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how high or how low the dose, the existence of a beneficial health effect may be surprising. But nearly a century of laboratory experimentation and epidemiological observation of both humans and animals supports the protective response region and contradicts the conventional wisdom. Why then does the concept that all ionizing radiation is harmful hang on with such tenacity, and how did it gain a foothold against all evidence to the contrary?
What we are about to say flies in the face of the conventional wisdom. There is no automatic reason for anyone to believe or trust our comments, so we provide some sources at the end that allow the reader to do further investigation. And for the sake of brevity we will for the most part make categorical statements, claims which rest on voluminous evidence that the reader may have to study, just as we have done, in order to get over the speed bump that the conventional wisdom invariably represents. Therefore consider this an introduction to the topic of radiation “hormesis,” intended to open doors, rather than an attempt to convince–-an impossible goal of a single commentary, particularly under the circumstances.
In light of repeated assertions that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how high or how low the dose, the existence of a beneficial health effect may be surprising. But nearly a century of laboratory experimentation and epidemiological observation of both humans and animals supports the protective response region and contradicts the conventional wisdom. Why then does the concept that all ionizing radiation is harmful hang on with such tenacity, and how did it gain a foothold against all evidence to the contrary?
http://atomicinsights.com/why-does-conventional-wisdom-ignore-hormesis/
No comments:
Post a Comment