Talk:Radiation hormesis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Theory?

Is this really a theory? Wouldn't Hypothesis be more accurate?--Sinus 17:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Formally theory is the correct term. Hypothesis is not used scientifically.WolfKeeper 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium

There are 3 links concerning this area of study in the depleted uranium page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.196.15 (talk • contribs)

As you'd expect... many of the claims of the danger of depleted uranium munitions are based on applying the LNT to ingested alpha emitters. The logic goes, if ingesting a strong alpha emitter causes cancer, then ingesting a weak alpha emitter such as U-238 must cause cancer too, only more rarely. But not everyone agrees with this logic of course, see radiation hormesis. Andrewa 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrewa, alpha emitters are least likely to be exhibit to a hormetic response curve (see Hall's Taylor award lecture[1]), and I don't know why 4.2 MeV is low energy, it's pretty high in my book. Pdbailey 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

True, I didn't say low energy, and I suggest you take the advice of whoever did (;-> with a grain of salt. But the decay energy is only part of the story. You also need to take account of the rate of decay, which in the case of Uranium-238 is very low. Perhaps that's the source of the rumours that U-238 is a particularly nasty alpha emitter, which it certainly is not when compared to say Radium-226 which has a similar decay energy, or Polonium-210, 5.4 MeV, halflife 138 days... Now that is a nasty beast.

As to whether alpha emitters are likely to exhibit hormesis or other non-linearity, your link reads in part In this context the assumption of a threshold is hazardous, and the linear no-threshold hypothesis still appears to be prudent and conservative. I don't see how anyone would doubt that, or that the LNT is valid in some contexts (I know some have). But where, as with DU munitions (or as another example the question of whether nukes are a sensible alternative to coal), you're comparing radiation risks to other risks, it's better to be realistic rather than prudent and conservative. Too often, you find people comparing LNT-based estimates of radiation damage to realistic estimates of other risks, which proves nothing. If you could find a similar conservative approach to the other risks, then the comparison would at least be valid, but it still wouldn't be as useful as the realistic approach. Andrewa 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence against

User 75.4.206.172 edited the evidence against (Revision as of 10:06, 13 January 2007) section to delete one of the dot points. What was the justification? This looks like it is backed up by a legitimate article from a reputable source. I would like to reinstate it. --Dashpool 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dashpool, I'm trying to bring this article into line with Wikipedia's attribution policy. The removed link may or may not be self published. It certainly isn't a journal article as it sits on the website, but the website may have an editorial process and be reliable, I can't tell. I've also editied the `evidence' section to include fact tags and hope they can be added in the near future.

• I removed the bullet that reads, "no chromosomal damage was detectable in animals with high radiation counts living around Chernobyl" because this article is about hormesis, not lack of cromosomal damage.

I'm unclear about this reason. Could you elaborate?WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the article regards radiaiton hormesis. This claim says not that cromosomal damage was reversed, lowered, or even not increased. It also does not say that crromosomal damage is the primary pathway for radiation damage.Pdbailey 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the ramsar link reference because it is obviously self-published (see WP:ATT again) he does link to a variety of journal articles, perhaps one of them says what he is trying to say.

In fact self-published sources are not forbidden provided the author is notable; his credentials give prima facie evidence that he is notable on this topic.WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that self-published sources are not forbidden. But the person has to be an expert. If this person is an expert, than why are six of the seven citations grey litterature? The only one that even would be locatable in the US is the health physics sosciety publication, but it's preliminary. The real problem here is exceptional claims require exceptional sources and this portion of the policy reads,``claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. See the headline NAS and NCRP reports for the prevailing view of the relevant academic community.Pdbailey 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the link from the lower than expected cancer in Chernobyl because the website has as a headline on the mainpage a link to an article titled, ``Ahmadinejad Seeks Asylum in U.S.! without any indication on the main page that the article is humor. Is this a humor site? the politics of this site at the least are not neutral.

That's not right. NPOV is reached by including diverse opinions, not only including neutral opinions. You can't remove a reference only because you think they are not neutral, or because they link to a web page that is (clearly marked) as humour.WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's set aside the humor piece, and again I'll point to the exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Pdbailey 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the link and bullet related to the Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons as not reliable because of it's inclusion on quackwatch's non-recomended periodicals [2]. Pdbailey 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough; you have provided evidence that it is not a trustworthy source.WolfKeeper 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WolfKeeper and others, can I get a response on tcs? Again, my contention is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources and tcs doesn't cut it for disagreeing with UNSCEAR, NAS, and NCRP. Pdbailey 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

After one month of no response, I'm removing the claim. It would be nice to have the other unreferenced claims dealt with so we can remove the NPOV tag. Pdbailey 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added an NPOV tag to the section on evidence because (1) it is mainly evidence against and this is in discord with the NAS and NCRP reports and (2) there are no citations for the ``for claims. This second claim is rectifiable and hopefully will be in the near future, but the first one deserves some thought.Pdbailey 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I just readded the NPOV tag. I think it should stay in place until the citations can be found. The issue is that the claims are exceptional and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A portion of the policy reads,``claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. and the top poriton of the article reads,

Radiaiton hormesis has been rejected by both the National Research Council's (part of the National Academy of Sciences) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by U.S. Congress) .

A report by the National Academy especially is almost the definition of the prevailing veiw of the relevant academic community. Pdbailey 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that, "Some studies have shown that moderate internal exposure to plutonium results in a reduction of the risk of cancer.[9]" Could someone point to where in the article this claim comes from? you may want to read the conclusions (available at an unlikable isi site). They start, "There is evidence for an association between radiation exposure and mortality from cancer" which makes it an odd inclusion for a hormesis support claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pdbailey (talk • contribs) 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I appear to be the only one interested in this NPOV tag, but I'm trying to edit the section so that it's less objectional after about 3 months of it being there with the tag. I would think that those who built the seciton would like to do this, but I want it to get done eventually. Pdbailey 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pdbailey I now found your statement several times, that because a threshhold theory is in discord with the NAS reports, a citation needs to be an exceptional source to be accepted as a "valid" source. While I understand your argument I am really wondering what exactly the NAS reports say. As far as I can tell from the WP articles it simply seems to state that there is no conclusive evidence for a threshold theory. Does it actually state that there is strong evidence _against_ a threshold theory ? I find the statement "there is no conclusive evidence for a threshold theory" quite weak. I find this a lot weaker than the phrase "the threshold theory is in discord with the NAS report", because this phrase seems to imply that there is strong evidence against this theory. As far as I understand, NAS uses the LNT, because it is a reasonable and above all conservative estimation. My meaning: You try to estimate conservative, because you don't want to underestimate the risk. This doesn't mean at all that your estimate is a good approximation. As far as I have now read, there also is no conclusive evidence for the LNT model. It is used, because it is simple and conservative. (A threshold model is definitely not conservative, so it might underestimate the risk; there also seems to be no easy theoretical explanation for a lower threshold, so it also is not simple. Radiation hormesis seems to be a very optimistic model...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.29.169 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that the page is expanded and includes many far superior references (and more will be added), I think that the NPOV tag can be removed. If not, let me know what improvements need to be made. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still have many objections. The section reads like a plaintive child wrote it and many of the studies are deeply flawed. i.e. Thompson goes out of its way to publish an indication of its shortcomings in the abstract, the fact that having a level of education is associated with protection for radiation suggests massive omitted variable bias is possible. In addition, to all the other problems that these kinds of reports have (radon levels are correlated with which part of a town or state or the country one lives in, which is correlated with wealth, which is correlated with health status). In effect, radon levels need to be randomly assigned for a good report. In addition, the report is subject to the same criticism as every other epidemiological report on radon--that the non-linear behavior of the interaction between smoking and radon make small errors in reporting of the smoking variable have large much larger errors in the outcome (this is in the NCRP report), i.e. the report has already been credibly criticized. Pdbailey (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, NPOV is your opinion. If articles do not agree with your strong belief that Radiation Hormesis is bunk, then you think the article is not in a NPOV. Whereas, true NPOV reflects all current opinion in the scientific community, and that includes opinions that are at odds with your user page position statement. I have no opinion on whether or not Radiation Hormesis is true, I don't know, I'm just reflecting what is said elsewhere. Reinterpreting and proffering personal opinions on a peer reviewed paper is not appropriate, if you believe you have a reference that contradicts the articles I added (e.g. Thompson), then add it. I believe there is a Iowa study that agreed with LNT? That could be added to balance Thompson. --Diamonddavej (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, the basic principle that I'm operating under (that you can disagree with) is that a consensus document is vastly more authoritative than a peer reviewed paper. This isn't absolute, I would agree that a paper in a journal like Science of the Journal of the American Statistical Society published after the consensus document might give one pause, and should appear in an article, but short of that, I think the best approach for Wikipedia is to wait for revisions to the consensus documents. Pdbailey (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus documents are a higher class of source than individual papers. Though much improved, there is still sufficient bias to warrant the NPOV tags. I am going to try to block out some time this weekend (possibly but hopefully not later) for a merge/overhaul, but in the meantime you might try WP:Third opinion to get a neutral outsider's look at the sourcing claims. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that the "consensus" studies (e.g. BEIR VII) extended the high dose exposure/risk relationship to the low dose region where there is no strong supporting evidence or data; they assumed LNT. Therefore, the "consensus" studies offer only a hypothesis about the low dose region, they do not represent evidence against radiation hormesis (or threshold). The decision to use LNT was born from a lack of data and uncertainty, thus fearing the worst is safer. Following this observation, I added an admonition to the article. I hope it placates some concerns. I emphasised that radiation hormesis is a hypothesis and I describe the features distinguishing a theory and a hypothesis; an important distinction that can escape lay people. I think emphasising that radiation hormesis is a hypothesis and the claims outlined should be treated with caution is a good way forward. We cannot promote one or other position when dealing with hypotheses. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, I do not particulary like the admonition because it appears to talk down to the reader. How about this as a path forward. The article uses the lede as is, then the "rejecting" section but renamed to the more mild (and accurate) non-acceptance. The second should also have quotes from every body, because I think they all split hairs to a certain extent on this and neither flat out reject, but admonish current acceptance in practice. Then we point to three recent articles that would probably have to be considered the next version of the consensus documents (i.e. the Thompson HPS article) in a final section titled "ongoing debate". Pdbailey (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the page and let me know what else needs to be done. I read a paper yesterday that said the 1950's B-move genera with giant radiation exposed monsters were spawned when a few erroneous early experiments on the effects of radiation appeared to cause plants and animals to grow bigger. I also looked though a junk science book an ex-girlfriend gave me a few years ago "Kicking the Sacred Cow" by James P. Hogan (that I never read) and sure enough he has a chapter on Vitamin-R. I think the article deserves a popular culture section. --Diamonddavej (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, The page looks better, but I would add two more criteria--not that you have to agree-- (1) there be far fewer counter points in the controversy section (I've suggested three but am open to more if they are compelling), (2) I would add that they should focus on the time from 2000 and forward because this is around when the cutoff for consideration in the majority of the consensus documents. Pdbailey (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing we do agree with is that there is little support for Radiation Hormesis, but I think we differ on how to reflect this. Yes, normally when writing articles one gives minority points of view as little space as they deserve (thus avoiding undue weight). If this article was about the shape of the earth it would be wrong to dedicate half the article to Flat Earth theory. However, look at the Flat Earth page. Explanation Neutral point of view explains - "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them." Radiation Hormesis needs a detailed article about a minority point of view with a long, controversial and interesting history. Despite its length, I'm confident the article can still leave the reader a clear understanding that is has little support. I agree with culling some pre-2000 articles but Cohen (1995) must remain (with counter examples). --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, you make a good point. I would say that in Jimbo's classification scheme, you could probably name a prominent proponent for radiation hormesis (please do). That said, should this be the page, or should it be another page? I'll try to see if I can find a good example article in this vein (you can see my question over on the discussion of the undue page). Pdbailey (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I read your discussion on the undue page. T. D. Luckey is/was an ardent proponent of Radiation Hormesis (he appears retired or deceased now). His 1991 book on the subject provoked the current state of interest[3]. Rather then name a page Luckey and Radiation Hormesis, noting PSWG1920's comments, Luckey was/is one of many workers in this field and Radiation Hormesis predates him e.g. infamous Radium Elixirs, Radon Spas etc. Instead, I would like to copy my material to Radiation Homeostasis and expand that page. This page should remain highly skeptical, as it deals with important official public heath policies that should not be undermined. The minority view page could be used as a safety valve, where biased hormesis enthusiasts can be redirected. The page of course will maintain that Radiation Homeostasis is unsupported; after all it will make uncomfortable reading for proponents, I plan to include Radium Elixirs, Radon Spas and 1950s B-movies. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, I think that an article of that nature makes a lot of sense and would be a real valuable addition to Wikipedia. However, I also think that Radiation Hormesis is in that middle ground where the main article needs to take it seriously and talk about why smart people continue to believe in it. From my perspective (I know that I have like one note here, but stay with me fore just one more sentence), none of the consensus documents reject it out of hand and all appear to leave open the possibility that future research will find solid hormetic effects. To me, the current article needs two changes (1) the french consensus document should appear in the section currently titled, "Non Acceptance of Radiation Hormesis" (2) the section titled, "Ongoing Debate" shouldn't just be a list of linked articles that appears to come out swinging, but instead focuses on some of the more compelling recent research (if briefly). I think the 75mGy/day dog reference from BEIR clearly outlines the dangers of not considering the whole story for many of the pro-hormesis papers. Pdbailey (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ach, no! Please do not turn Radiation hormesis into a POV-fork of Radiation hormesis, especially not while there appears to be a (admittedly limited) consensus that these articles deal with substantially the same topic and should be merged. Historical examples of marketing based on the idea and its expression in popular culture sound great, though. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about POV-forks, clearly separating the article is not an option. So we will have to expand the Radiation Hormesis; I suggest the following headings, "non acceptance, historical developments (Radium elixirs, Radon Spas, growing appreciation of dangers), resurgent interest/ongoing debate and cultural influences. Yes, the French study should go into the "Non Acceptance..." section. I also agree that the list of articles should be trimmed. Ko et al. is a good paper to retain and focus on too, I read a criticism of it which I will add. Finally, my college library access ends on the 15 April, as I recently submitted my thesis. I will not have journal access after that date. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 removal

I removed this tag because the objections I raised had been dealt with. Pdbailey (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cadmium

User:DopefishJustin Has just made the Cadmium seciton a new section. Can someone please tie it in with the rest of the article. What does Cadmium have to do with radiation? Pdbailey 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting article, not quite on radiation hormesis though

...but still (somehow) related and could go some way into explaining the mechanism behind the effect:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070422222547data_trunc_sys.shtml

Chernobyl Fungus Feeds On Radiation

...Two types - one that was induced to make melanin (Crytococcus neoformans) and another that naturally contains it (Wangiella dermatitidis) - were exposed to levels of ionizing radiation approximately 500 times higher than background levels. Both of these melanin-containing species grew significantly faster than when exposed to standard background radiation...

...Interestingly, the melanin in fungi is no different chemically from the melanin in our skin, leading Casadevall to speculate that melanin could be providing energy to skin cells....

-G3, 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

G3, this is one study that found one thing and then the PI made vast speculation that is unsupported by their evidence. This is the PI tipping his hand on future research to get more funding. So, the same investigator will likely continue to look down this road and may find something in the future. Nevertheless, I think you original conclusion that it doesn't relate to radiation hormesis is correct. Pdbailey 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Added more References

I have added several references on the side of the radiation hormesis. I note that one paper is from a journal with dubious track record. These references were added in a short space of time, I can find more papers from reputable journals. Chen et al. (2004) from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons was cited 17 times by other authors who did not reject the paper based upon the dubious forum in which it was published. Additionally, it was followed up in 2007 with a paper in Dose Response. I have only looked up papers on radiation hormesis over the last few hours, I gained the impression of a recent renaissance in interest with little criticism of the theory. --Diamonddavej 07:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamonddave, the Chen et al. claims (now made in Dose-Response) are still extraordinary, and Dose-Response doesn't yet have subscriptions from universities that keep huge radiation subscriptions (i.e. look in the University of Chicago online catalog, and the Argonne National Lab online catalog for it, and it is not in either). This suggests to me that at the lease, the journal isn't a high profile place, which is what these kinds of claims need. Pdbailey 14:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that their claims were so odd they could not get published, except in fringe journals, which is a pity. Both papers have 14 authors, typical of an important paper in a good journal. I think it should remain but with the note that they were published in fringe journals. Also, there is this paper in the American Journal of Roentgenology that briefly comments on the unexpected Taiwan cancer rate - Cohen B.L. 2002. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 179(5):1137-43 who writes...

From national Taiwan statistics, 173 cancers and 4.5 leukemias would be expected from natural sources, and according to the linear no-threshold theory, there should have been 30 additional leukemias. However, a total of only five cancers and one leukemia have occurred among these people [32].

Link to Cohen paper. [4] and Chen et al. 2007 [5]

Also, here is a letter written to New Scientist about Chen et al. (2004). [6] --Diamonddavej 12:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The paper makes an extraordinary claim that has an obvious explanation that the authors completely ignore and then acts as if they (literally) found the cure for cancer. The reason it's a bad paper is that the experimental design makes no sense. In an experiment you have a treatment and a control group and you compare the two to get a "treatment effect." The way you get a drug approved in the United States is to compare people in what's called a double bind experiment wherein neither their doctors, nor the patients know weather the patient is in the treatment nor the control group--this is the gold standard and it is rarely reached. In an observational study you are forced to make approximations for a control group. Huge amounts of work has gone into how to do this in a credible way. One method is propensity score if you are interested. However, at a minimum one is often compelled to find another group that has some similarity on some characteristics to the treatment group (i.e. the same age breakdown, same socioeconomic class, or just something). But these authors have not done that. They have compared one subsample of people to the population as a whole. To highlight the absurdity of this, the atomic bomb survivors who were young at the time would indicate that it was protective to get irradiated if compared with the population as a while because they are just now reaching the age at which most people get cancer. Because of this same effect, being poor appears to be protective to cancer because it's associated of dieing of other ailments before cancers can develop.

But all this is neither here nor there for what we are discussing today. Wikipedia has policies related to the scope of the project, and it's verifiability. These claims fail to meet the standard of that policy. Pdbailey 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that sounds right. However you would need to find a reference to that effect, in order to remove it, or better, add that comment to the article, otherwise it's OR.WolfKeeper 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was forced to revert your edits pdbailey, not only did you seem to have removed referenced material, but there were sentences that ended up being cut off in the middle. I feel that the article is/was currently supporting an anti-hormesis effect, and I would like to see more material pro and con (mainly con), and explaining why claims to hormesis were unlikely, rather than removing claims of hormesis. Certainly though, removing material you don't agree with is wrong if it is at all well known; we are supposed to capture disagreements; that's what NPOV is about.WolfKeeper 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper. I can't say I appreciate either the form or execution of the rv, let me explain why I made the edit in little pieces for you.

1. I removed the evidence for section because it was so paltry. It suggested that the only evidence for LNT is one study about airline pilots, this was adding to the POV, so I removed it. This falls under being bold.
2. I removed the Ramsar self published reference because this violates wikipedia policy.
3. I removed the Taiwanese steel because of clearly documented reasons above (see the pagraph starteing "But all this"), you may also want to read WP:REDFLAG. In specific, these authors claim to have literally found a way of preventing most cancers, this is a huge red flag.
4. I removed the second ramsar reference for the same reason--it's a tall claim that disagrees with the UNSCEAR, NCRP, and NAS papers on the topic. While the fact that it's in only one publication is already enough to reject the claim according to the above redflag reference, the publication in question isn't subscribed to by any large academic organization that I could find, suggesting it is at the very least not at the center of its field.
5. being as how the whole Ramsar sentence now had no reference again (making it about one year) I also removed the section.

I'm not sure which part you thought was original research, but lets just breakup discussion into the above bulleted items. If you disagree, please continue discussion on any one. If you agree with them, please undo the rv, or any portion of it. Pdbailey 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can comment on point 3 and 4. One example: A response by Rossi (1998)[7] to an article that pitted arguments for and against Hormesis (in Medical Physics); Rossi says "there can be no doubt that small ~and sometimes not so small! radiation doses can reduce the "natural" incidence of some cancers. This has been clearly demonstrated in experimental radiobiology ~e.g. Ullrich and Storer (1979)¹" and "We have shown (Rossi and Zaider, 1997)³ that x-ray doses up to 2 Gy do not cause lung cancer in man and most likely reduce it. Similar findings were made for leukemia in A-bomb survivors at doses up to 0.3 Gy (Shimizu et al. 1992)⁴. Clearly, the argument that slightly elevated radiation levels provide a protective affect against some cancers has been presented previously, several times and in peer review, thus Chen et al. and the second Ramsar Ref. are not WP:REDFLAG. --Diamonddavej 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, I'm not saying that any claim of hormesis isn't acceptable, just these. The papers you just referenced would be much better than what's currently on the page. Let's focus on Taiwan. Before we continue lets make sure we agree on the logic you're presenting. (A) Rossi asserts that hormesis is possible for specific tissues at low and sometimes at moderate doses, backed up by epidemiological evidence in specific organs in a well controlled study. (B) Chen et al. claim a 97% reduction in all cancers in an observational study. (C) Therefor Chen's claim is not dramatic. Or am I missing something? Pdbailey 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, on 3, there is a paper (by the same authors?) in Lancet (the top medical journal in Europe) on this topic, why not include that paper? Pdbailey 04:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Only W.L Chen appears both on the Lancet paper and in Chen et al. (2004 & 2007), but I'll check again. I propose adding the Lancet paper and several other papers that discuss chromosomal damage and thyroid problems, thus giving more balance to that section (papers can be found on W.L. Chen's university webpage) webpage.[8] I'd like to see the Chen et al. claims remain; it has been referenced, discussed in print and even one TV documentary was made - Horizon or Equinox. Also, most significantly, it is claimed the victims received more radiation individually and collectively then Japanese H-bomb survivors![9] Chen et al. claims, however odd, are notable and deserve inclusion. Btw, the data they used was based on a victims support group report. And here is a 2004 letter by Luan Yuan-Chi written to the International Commission on Radiological Protection, where he give more details and again claims lowered cancer rate, 12.8/100,000 v's 156.01/100,000 [10] There are many letters on the ICRP website titled "low dose extrapolation of radiation related cancers", a good source to gauge consensus[11] Here is a little gem...

"But there is also the indirect argument suggesting that somehow (and I have no idea how) a low level of exposure to radiation stimulates the organism's overall efficiency of repair (including for non-radiation-induced SSB damage single-strand break, which dominates) such that a reduction in that background dose could increase the overall incidence of cancer at the clinical level, and conversely. In lay terms, I guess the argument is an analogue of the notion that health and fitness correlate with exercise." - G Ches Mason, IAEA.[12]

Finally, you may be interested in reading this 1999 email by Luan Yuan-Chi, where he complains about suppression of his results.[13]

I've only investigated this theory over the last week, we maybe witnessing a paradigm shift --Diamonddavej 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, I think we fundamentally disagree on one fact, is this a case of redflag. To me, the claim that most cancers can be averted with a readily available therapy falls into that category. The above email appears (to me) to only give more evidence to this claim, this paper is obviously way out of the mainstream. I think theres some sort of mediation process on wikipedia, I'll see if I can learn more and perhaps get it started. Pdbailey 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree with that course. It maybe out of the mainstream but it has been quoted and talked about so much it is notable. My reasoning is that people should see that its wrong (if it is wrong) rather then suppress it and have it go unchallenged. There are several possibilities - its removal, a separate page that discuses the Taiwan incident away from hormesis, retention in the hormesis article with further papers that present evidence of harm. In the mean time I'll email a Taiwanese environmental group to find out their take on this. --Diamonddavej 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found this email discussion, that ripped apart the Chen-Luan ascertain that there was a reduction in cancer, looks like it was a cover-up. I now agree that it should be removed.[14]

"Dr Chang has told me that 131 cases of cancer, including 46 cancer fatalities, were observed over 18 years amongst 7,271 persons registered, via the National Cancer Registry Program in Taiwan, as the exposed population. He suggests that this may be greater than the number of cancer cases in a similar population that had not been exposed to the radiation - particularly hemato-lymphoid malignancies and all types of leukemia in men, and thyroid cancers in women."[15]

--Diamonddavej 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the study was referenced from a fairly recent Horizon program on Chernobyl, so we probably need to include it in the article.WolfKeeper 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WolfKeeper, what is a "Horizon program"? Do you have a link? Pdbailey 19:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember seeing the same Horizon episode that referenced the Taiwanese study. Horizon is a long running science documentary series that is shown in the UK on the BBC, according to the BBC - "Horizon is BBC Two's flagship 50-minute science documentary series. In September 2004 it celebrated its 40th anniversary and it continues to enjoy outstanding critical acclaim. Recognised as the world leader in its field, it regularly wins a sweep of international science, medical and environmental film accolades, and has recently won the Royal Television Society Award and the Prix Italia."

The quality of science reporting in the UK has worsened greatly in the last decade or so, it seems that science has lost respect and trust there. I believe this is in large part because so many third level graduates in media industry are from Arts & Humanities, who have no science and critical thinking training. Here is a link to Horizon on the BBC.[16]--Diamonddavej 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a review programme content, from the producer.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the comments on that page odd because I recall reading in the UNSCEAR report how the observed superlinearity was probably caused by increased screening and doctor response. But maybe that was just thyroid cancer. Pdbailey (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Radiation Homeostasis

The page on Radiation homeostasis should be merged across, and redirected to this page.

Unfortunately, I don't really know how to use the Wiki software to that extent.AWeishaupt (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The instructions are at moving and merging pages. I agree that this should be done and have so proposed below. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The pages Radiation hormesis and Radiation homeostasis appear to deal with substantively the same topic, and should I think be merged. Should consensus to merge be reached, I would prefer the "hormesis" title, as it appears slightly broader and more commonly used. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

agree a merger is a good idea. The two articles overlap substantively and to the extent that they do not now, each would benefit from the expansion. Pdbailey (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

These two articles contain related but not identical subjects. I might suggest have two articles, one on each topic, with clear cross referencing. Stclaws (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

super linear effects on IQ?

I think we need to incorporate the findings in [17] but they do not appear to include a dose estimate except to say that it is less than 10 mGy and that the average effect is over 30 IQ points / Gy (for those exposed in the 8-25 week window). Pdbailey (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

should this article list a number of journal articles that argue for Radiation Hormesis

There is a central question here: should this article list a number of journal articles that argue for Radiation Hormesis? The argument against is that there is strong scientific consensus against radiation hormesis and plenty of consensus references so that we do not have to go digging through the literature to find every article on the topic--which is simply not apropos. I propose removing all but a few (say three) of the articles that argue for radiation hormesis and moving that section to the end. Pdbailey (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a pretty clear case of WP:WEIGHT - a neutral reader should leave this article knowing that there is negligible scientific debate as to the health effects of any type or level of radiation exposure. I would hazard that there is a good chance that none of the supporting articles meet the reliable sources bar for well-designed studies (certainly that applies to the few I have seen}, and these primary sources should be disallowed except in extraordinary cases. Instead, we should summarize secondary reliable sources writing about what certain other people think about low-level radiation exposure. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary Elderef, the debate is extremely lively and divisive. If you spend an hour reading the literature you will find that trench warfare is underway - indicative of an active paradigm shift. For example, the respected French Academy of Sciences released a report in 2005,[18] that acknowledge that 40% of laboratory studies have observed radiation hormesis and they describe several biological mechanisms that can force a departure from LNT. That said, I agree that most of the weak articles should be removed and only a few examples from respected sources should remain. These should include the laboratory studies of Ko et al. (2008); Durante et al. (2003) Pathak et al. (2007) and the epidemiological study of Thompson et al. (2008). Additionally, the Thompson et al. (2008) paper could go well with a description of Bernard Cohen's notable 1995 Health Physics paper, as the downward risk/mortality slopes in both papers, I read, overlays almost perfectly.[19] Bernard is offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can undermine his evidence against LNT.

B.L. Cohen, 1995. "Test of the Linear-No Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products". Health Physics 68. 157-174.[20]

--Diamonddavej (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, I don't have access to HPS, but I used to. Can you lookup Eric Hall's Lauriston S. Taylor lecture and tell me how far down he is able to find evidence for LNT? It is not in the abstract, but it is the lowest LNT value I recall seeing. Pdbailey (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric's paper is not available online, it is 1998 vintage i.e. before Pdf. You could obtain the paper by library photocopy or buying a hard copy of the article. Interestingly, here is a group proposing an Ultra-Low-Level Radiation lab for studying the biological effects of no radiation.[21] This will likely will settle the debate over LNT, hormesis etc. Careful, their 4 page Pdfs are 39 megabytes! --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article does not include the epidemiological evidence from Taiwan where many apartments were mistakenly constructed out of radioactive steel, and the population exposed to this radiation had much lower cancer rates

see this article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.201.34 (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not - JPandS is not a reliable source of scientific information. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This article's claims are not plausible. The abstract claims an 80% reduction in cancer deaths puts it on par with "Too cheap to meter". Paul Studier (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A Drug that confers Radioprotection

Science just published a paper by Burdelya et al. that describes a drug that has radioprotective (radiation hormesis) activity. It is CBLB502, a polypeptide obtained from Salmonella flagellin that "binds to Toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5) and activates nuclear factor–kB signaling" - thus decreasing rates of cell death during radiotherapy. Bhattacharjee suggest that the drug, or drugs like it, could be used to save lives during a nuclear catastrophe.

Burdelya, L.G. et al., 2008. An Agonist of Toll-Like Receptor 5 Has Radioprotective Activity in Mouse and Primate Models. Science, 320(5873), p.226-230.[22]

Bhattacharjee, Y., 2008. MEDICINE: Drug Bestows Radiation Resistance on Mice and Monkeys. Science, 320(5873), p.163.[23]

--Diamonddavej (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How is the related to the article? Pdbailey (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with radiation homeostasis

The article on radiation homeostasis had mostly supporting studies, drawn from biology, while this article summarized the nuclear physics led reports of the atomic commissions, which mostly uphold linear-no-threshhold. I merged them, but I also did some rewording of the article, and I want to justify this:

The article stated that "most major studies have upheld linear no-threshhold". As far as I know, the linear no-threshhold model was derived from Hiroshima cancer data, and was reaffirmed by radiative damage studies on DNA in the 1950s, where it was established that there is no threshhold for DNA damage. No statistical studies of the effects of radiation that I am aware of have upheld linear no-threshhold in the regime of debate, which is for doses comparable to the natural rate. To be fair, it requires heroic statistics to do this type of thing, so the paucity of studies is not surprising.

The consensus of the atomic commissions then seems to be just wrongheaded. If there is a single study that confirmed any aspects of linear no-threshold, I would understand the reluctance to abandon the simple model. But I don't think there is one. So the only reason that I can see for the model surviving is bureaucratic inertia. Perhaps I'm wrong, but then a statement like "most studies have upheld linear-no-threshold" should be backed up with an example of one such study in the regime of low dosage.Likebox (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

read Eric Hall's Lauriston S. Taylor Lecture in the Health Physics society journal. It's also important to recall that failure to reject the null hypothesis does not imply that it is right or that it is wrong. Pdbailey (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right in general, and I am not saying that LNT is without merit. But the consequences are extreme. The unnecessary expenditures justified by this model cost the public millions of dollars. Not only that, but the public fear of nuclear power or dirty bombs is mostly due to this model. You can find quotes where people say that Chernobyl led to thousands of extra cancers, when the actual number outside the immediate area is most likely zero. I think that when there is an untested model like this, one which has such a drastic impact on public policy, it should be viewed with skepticism. It will probably remain a useful guideline for health policy for nuclear workers, it just shouldn't be used to argue that a nuclear powered satellite exploding in the upper atmosphere will lead ten people to die.Likebox (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of Sections

This is probably an incredibly stupid point to debate, I'm sorry to do it, but if you put American nuclear commissions up front, you give too much authority to LNT. The French nuclear authorities have rejected LNT, and even the American studies accept it only tentatively, for lack of a better simple model. We shouldn't bias the article by making this seem like a fringe theory.Likebox (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008 POV tag

I just readded the POV tag. None of the large peer review bodies endorse radiation hormesis, and the United Nations, the National Academies, the National Council on Radiation Protection, agree that it is not important. I appreciate that there are many papers that do find evidence indicative of radiation hormesis, but when you read the NCRP report you see that a large body of the of the results are not apropos of the question of radiation hormesis in humans. The disagreeing papers are POV and should be presented as such. Also, there are hundreds of articles that might appear in this article, we should not have everyone that someone wants to add but maybe focus on a few or use a group of them that have an associated interesting narrative. This is much more interesting than "mice that have cobalt-60 sprinkled on their food can leap 20% higher" over and over again. If you are interested in this, please read over the above POV discussion. Pdbailey (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although you are right if you restrict attention to the United States, you are not completely correct taking a more international view--- the French nuclear bodies endorse hormesis, or at least the view that low levels of radiation are not harmful. The peer reviewed literature, excluding by nature conservative review bodies, also on balance endorses the view. The presentation is full of caveats, warnings not to reach premature conclusions, etc. Like any other controvertial scientific knowledge, the conclusion is tentative. But I think the article shies away from saying explicitly that radiation hormesis is real, nor does it say that it is an artifact. It just presents the literature for the hypothesis, and the literature against, and begins with the statement that there is no conclusive data either way. So I think the POV tag is unwarranted.

Just so that my personal biases are out in the open: I have about 60% confidence that radiation hormesis is a real effect, but a 95% confidence that LNT is totally wrong for low doses.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, it is your POV that the bastions of science like NAS are, "by nature conservative review bodies." These bodies represent the highest level of scientific consensus. What's more, the NCRP report goes over, paper by paper, many, many literature references and describes why they do not agree that the paper implies LNT is not correct or that a valid conclusion from the paper is that radiation hormesis in humans exists. What's more, I have yet to see a quote from the french that says they actually endorse the idea that a hormetic dose response exists in humans. The article has POV because of statements like:

• "Other studied have suggested that a small dose of radiation may be good for you." this is vague and comes very close to, as you say, saying that radiation hormesis is real.
• "In mice it has been shown that a 200 mGy X-ray dose protects mice against both further X-ray exposure and ozone gas." For how long?
• the crazy Tiawan study is included. You may want to read the wikilink to the journal it is published in.
• the dose rate information is well known and is why NCRP uses a dose rate conversion factor in calculating the LNT model it uses. In fact, at high doses, there is a widely accepted non-linearity.
• this paragraph

In a recent paper[18] a dose of 1 Gy was delivered to the cells (at constant rate from a radioactive source) over a series of lengths of time. These were between 8.77 and 87.7 hours, the abstract stated for a dose delivered over 35 hours or more (low dose rate) no transformation of the cells occurred. Also for the 1 Gy dose delivered over 8.77 to 18.3 hours that the biological effect (neoplastic transformation) was about 1.5 times smaller than that which that had been observed using a single high dose rate of X-ray photons of similar energy.

presents what looks like an interesting paper, but I don't know if it just rehashes dose rate knowledge or says something about LNT or Hormesis. Pdbailey (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

After we get done with this section, we can start on the, "Ongoing debate" section. Just to get my bias on the table, I think hormesis/LNT/no response doesn't matter after Eric Hall's paper showing linear response down to 100 mrem. If someone told me the exact dose response in that region and it was mildly hormetic, I would still practice ALARA. Pdbailey (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points--- but they can mostly be fixed by removing the offending statements instead of declaring that the whole article is biased. Let's be clear about what nobody disputes: DNA damage in response to radiation is 100% linear all the way down to 0 dosage, and this has been known since the fifties. If you look for damage markers in response to radiation, or for molecular signs of damage, you will find a linear response too, and I don't think anybody disputes that. But DNA or molecular damage does not directly translate to a cancer response in an animal, because of repair and immune response. Heck, for all we know, low levels of radiation might kill off incipient cancer cells by providing continuous radiotherapy! So there are many plausible ways in which the known linear response at low dosages can be mitigated, and the conclusion that LNT is valid to 0 dosage is unwarranted. If LNT were really true, we should have mountains of evidence now from cancer data in miners and homeowners exposed to radon and high altitude residents. But all this data, every single study, shows hormesis without exception.

Regarding your bullets: I will delete the incompletely unsourced statement "other studies have shown that a small dose of radiation is good for you" and "mice exposed to 200MeV ...".

The Taiwan study might not be the best in its class, but it is a typical representative of population studies.I can't imagine that all the studies on high altitude residents and miners are biased by systematic error. That's either conspiracy or voodoo.

As far as nuclear bodies go, they have systematic bias. They have been pushing LNT for decades, and they never really put it to the test. It would be a lot of egg on a lot of faces if it turned out to be so wrong. I am not saying that they are necessarily wrong, I am just suggesting that their conclusions are at least as biased as the Taiwan study. All biases, even those held by the most powerful authorities, should be subject to skeptical review.Likebox (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok--- so I went and read the Taiwan study--- what's your problem with it? The journal? That's crazy--- lots of good journals publish bad studies and lots of bad journals publish good studies. Reading the paper, it's an ideal epidemological test of the LNT model, and the model fails, as always. It's not even surprising anymore.

The statements that you are objecting to are sourced, and reading the sources, they support the statements. They are qualified appropriately "may be benficial" etc. So I don't think they should be removed at all. Since I don't see the bias in the statements that you have identified--- they are fair summaries of their literature sources, I'll remove the POV tag, if it's all right by you.Likebox (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I should say--- after reading the Taiwan study, my biases have changed: I'd say I have 90% confidence that hormesis is real.Likebox (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I went and read the rest of this talk page, and I see your previous objections to the Taiwanese steel study. You said that they were claiming a cure for cancer! This is hyperbole. They don't claim any such thing.

What they did do is compare the number of extra cancers predicted by LNT in the Taiwanese apartments to the number of "extra" cancers observed. The reason I put "extra" in quotes is because the number of cancers was lower than in the general population, so that the number of extra cancers, instead of being a positive number in the hundreds as predicted by LNT, was a negative number in the hundreds as predicted by hormesis. This is entirely consistent with other epidemological studies but in contrast with the others, here the chance of systematic bias is nearly exactly zero, because the apartment residents could not have been self selected in any way.

You claim that there are "red flags" in the article that qualify it as fringe. I don't know what red flags you saw. There is no wild statement, the whole article is actually pretty boring for anyone who doesn't care about LNT. What they say is that they tested LNT, and LNT failed. That's it. As I said, the number of times LNT has failed is so large that the surprise would be if you found a single study that said "We tested LNT, and it was roughly correct."Likebox (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, before we go on, will you agree not to remove the NPOV tag until we have resolved these issues? I see that you disagree with me about the NPOV, but the tag merely alerts the reader to the fact that there is a dispute as to the POV of the article. If I just started removing points that I thought were beyond the pail you would revert me, that is obviously not the road I want to go down. As you can see, I am here, responding, and was able to generate a list of complaints, it is hardly a drive by. Pdbailey (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry.Likebox (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now lets go on to the bullets. You appear interested in the Taiwan study. (1) if you calim that a treatment (living in a Co-60 contaminated building) reduces the risk of cancer by 90%, they are, in fact, arguing that the treatment can prevent 90% of cancer cases. If the argument is not for causation, than it does not belong in this article. (2) In scientific studies regarding human outcomes from some sort of treatment involves the concept of a treatment group and control group. Ideally, the two groups are identical ex ante. and a supervised randomization process assigns them to treatment and control groups. Sometimes there is a treatment applied in the world, and a retrospective control group must be constructed such that it is concievable that there is a sense in which it is random that a person was in the treatment on control groups. The authors do not attempt to use either of these research designs, but instead just compare a group of people to the population at large. If this was a valid research design, Nature probably would ahve published the article (they published preliminary findings of gene research, you have to imagine the authors submitted it). but they didn't nor did any of the second-tier journals, nor did any of the third-tier journals. Instead it ended up in a junk journal. This matters because of the criteria of WP:REDFLAG. Pdbailey (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a clinical trial--- it is a study of environmental influence. There are no studies of environmental effects which are as careful as you would like them to be. For example, when you look at the connection between smoking and lung cancer, the association is a strong statistical tie between the two. Does it imply causation? No--- and people argued this for years. You would need a control group and so on, but you can't do that with human trials. But give me a break. LNT is making a prediction of several hundred extra cancers, and what you see in this study is a reduction.

The claim that this is a way to reduce cancer by 90% is one that you are making. Radiation therapy is an accepted treatment for cancer, but it is not clear the introducing radiation purposefully into the environment will not have unforseen risks other than preventing cancer. Thankfully, the authors of this study do not make such an irresponsible statement.

It is not reasonable to extrapolate the reduction rate from this study, because the Poisson statistics--- you see 3 leukemias, it could have easily fluctuated to 10. What it couldn't have been is 40. The only conclusions you can conclusively draw from the reduction is that LNT is wrong, and this is precisely the conclusions the authors draw.

Your speculations about the submission process of this paper is completely out of line. Not everyone agrees that "science" or "nature" are any better than what you call "junk journals", and I certainly don't. I have seen garbage make it into science and nature, and I have seen great work published in second tier or third tier journals. If you want to attack the article, attack the methodology. Or do your own analysis. Unless you think that they are lying about the number of cancers reported, that is.

There are a thousand reasons this study could have ended up in a less prestigious journal. Maybe the editors of science and nature have friends who tell then LNT is correct. Maybe this is not the most original of studies (other studies have shown that LNT fails, and they have gotten attention). Maybe they come from a less prestigious institution. Who cares? What difference could it possibly make?

Before you go on critiquing "Every other study" with similar off topic comments, tell me, why is it that all the cancer studies show hormesis, and none bear out LNT?Likebox (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, I am trying to explain to you why this is junk science, not why it should not be on the page, that is because of WP:RS at the least. The journal is not a reliable source.

You write, "There are no studies of environmental effects which are as careful as you would like them to be." Not sure what basis that was made on, but I could cite great environmental papers all day. Most of them are based on a technique first published by Rosenbaum and Rubin in 1983 in a paper titled, "The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects." The ideas in this paper is probably central to most observational studies, especially since it has been linked with instrumental variables, the competing approach. Both of these amount to finding a randomizing event and exploiting that, here the claim is that the people in the building are random draws from the population, but that is obviously not true, even simple age and gender matching has not been carried out.

Finally, you write, "Before you go on critiquing 'Every other study' [...], tell me, why is it that all the cancer studies show hormesis, and none bear out LNT?" Actually, that is not what this page is for, it's for discussions about the article. I can defend the UN claim by pointing to the UN document, I can defend the NCRP claim by pointing to the NCRP document, et cetera. However, I have no idea where you get that all the cancer studies show hormesis. How did NAS miss this? You appear to be making a claim that NAS is just a bunch of ninnies. In specific, I would point to Eric Hall's Taylor lecture (cited above under Depleted Uranium). That is a paper he delivered while receiving an award from HPS (one of the detracting bodies), and delivered a talk showing linearity down to 100 mrem. Pdbailey (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Taiwan article is most certainly not junk science, and for you to call it that is just crazy. It might not have done as carefully as you would like, but the sheer size of the affected population makes it very unlikely that any selection bias is a source of significant error. But be that as it may, your objection is not fatal--- it just means you have to qualify the conclusion as less than 100% certain, and this is done in the article.

Every large scale cancer study on populations significantly disagrees with LNT, because they all show hormesis. That's why there's a debate. Don't ask me why NAS doesn't acknowledge this, I'm not a member. I looked at Eric Hall's home page, and I don't see him as an author of a statistical analysis on a population study (maybe I'm wrong). All I saw is that he renders his expert opinion on the matter, based on cellular mechanisms. As I said already, nobody contests that radiation leads to cellular damage linearly all the way down to 0 dosage. The question is whether this translates to cancer. The best test for this is population studies. If you just take the trouble to google the large population radiation/cancer studies, you can verify that they all show hormesis in a consistent way (although I didn't look at all of them).Likebox (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, you get yourself in trouble when you jump to conclusions too quickly. As I said above, Eric Hall has an article linked above. Here is the article that from the section titled, "depleted uranium" [24]. When you read the article (not the abstract) you will see his epidemiological data.

But this is a side point, the point we are at now with the Tiawan study is you claiming that a junk journal knows better than NAS. I don't know how to argue against that. All I can tell you is that there may be an encyclopedia that values junk journals over NAS reports, but it is not Wikipedia. Pdbailey (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, Radiation protection dosemitry just did a whole journal on Radon. My university does not buy this journal, so I can not read the articles, but perhaps you can find something good in there. However, when looking for these articles on JSTOR, I found this article which concludes

Mounting epidemiological evidence on radon and lung cancer risk, now available from more than 20 different studies of underground miners and complementary laboratory findings, indicates that risk are linear in exposure without threshold.

I think we can now both agree that the claim, "Every large scale cancer study on populations significantly disagrees with LNT" is just false. Pdbailey (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree yet (but thank you for digging up the references). I'll look for the original studies and get back to you once I read them. The (hormesis supporting) person whose (secondary literature) article I read about the lung-cancer studies in miners concluded that they show hormesis, but I didn't look at the original studies. I find secondary literature on controvertial stuff like this useless, and NAS is included in that.

What you call a "junk journal" or a "good journal" is just a reflection of your (unsupportable) POV. The way to evaluate these things is to look at the original studies and see what their methods are and whether they justify the conclusions.Likebox (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(backdent) Likebox, the difference between a junk journal and a good journal is that one publishes crack pot studies without a coherent review process and the good journal has a strong history of peer review and publishing studies that conform to the state of the art (good or bad as that may be). The idea isn't for the Wikipedia editors to judge what is right, it is for the editors of these publications to do that and for us use that to build our article. You really should read some of the policy documents WP:RELIABLE and WP:SOURCE. Pdbailey (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not your job to decide whether the journal is junk or not. This is a debate which is pointless. The thing you should judge is whether the study is accurate. The "scientific consensus" that you are pointing to is a fabrication, the consensus is tentative even within bodies that support LNT.Likebox (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored the order of the section. As I said before, your ordering gives undue weight to the NAS, whose conclusions are not a scientific consensus which is as strong as you are making it out to be. It is their opinion that LNT is accurate. Perhaps they are right, perhaps not. This article is about Hormesis, and the studies that adress the subject of hormesis should come first, not some opining by a nuclear body.Likebox (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am still trying to make sense of the miner studies. I don't know whether they are good evidence for LNT. But the reference you gave is good, it also includes homowner data references.Likebox (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, you are way out of line reverting those edits. It sure as heck is our job to decide what is junk and what is not. NAS represents the utmost of scientific consensus, it goes at the top. It is opinion, but it is the opinion of NAS. A journal is junk when it publishes garbage over and over. Again, read the wikipedia link about the journal with the Tiawan article in it. They publish junk constantly. Pdbailey (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is our job to decide when science is junk, but your decision that the Taiwan study is junk reflects a monstrous POV. You only reject it because it shows hormesis! By that measure, any supporting study is junk. Your reverts make hormesis look like ESP.

If you want some "reputable" secondary literature articles that support hormesis: here you go (I didn't read them--- just googled for them).

E. J. Calabrese "Radiation hormesis: the demise of a legitimate hypothesis" Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 76-84 (2000)

Jerry M. Cuttler "What Becomes of Nuclear Risk Assessment in Light of Radiation Hormesis?" Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Toronto, June 6-9, 2004

Jennifer L. Prekeges "Radiation Hormesis, or, Could All That Radiation Be Good for Us?" Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Volume 31, Number 1, 2003 11-17

So I am reverting the article. Please stop putting the weak, tentative, conclusions of the NAS in a position where they make supporters of hormesis look like lunatics.Likebox (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, please strike, "Your conclusion is not based on methodology or on data, it is based on prejudice, and your reverts make hormesis look like ESP." above I have written that the journal has published many, many questionable results and has no reputation for accuracy, I have also pointed out that there was no real attempt to create a control group. Pdbailey (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Struck offensive comment--- sorry. I just meant that you are not being fair to the article, because of the journal. I think that you have reasonable reasons to give less weight to the Taiwan study, but you don't acknowledge that it is not isolated. There are other studies.Likebox (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

LNT Supporting Review: Hall

(The last section was getting long and it is full of unqualified misstatements that I made--- sorry! It was out of ignorance. I think there should be a section on each study one by one, so that they can get a fair hearing. Thank you for calling attention to the supporting literature on LNT--- it was very informative and full of great links.)

I could not access Eric Hall's lecture, and I am sure he has epidemological data in there, and I will read it when I get a chance. But from his abstract, I took the following quote:

Genomic instability and immortality are hallmarks of cancer and it is attractive to hypothesize that this is due to a mutation in a gene or genes responsible for the stability of the genome. Examples abound of a small DNA change inactivating a gene and leading to major biological consequences. This could result from a single particle, especially a HZE particle, or a recoil proton from the absorption of a neutron. In this context the assumption of a threshold is hazardous, and the linear no-threshold hypothesis still appears to be prudent and conservative.

I think everyone can agree with the conclusions of this assessment. LNT is the most prudent and conservative way to estimate environmental cancer risk. But that does not mean that it is correct. In order to conclude that it is correct at low doses, you are implicitly accepting some version the hypothesis that he is selling here--- that a single ionizing particle will inactivate a hypothetical "stability gene" which then leads to wholesale mutation in the genome and eventually to cancer. While this might have been a plausible hypothesis in the 1950s, I don't think that it is consonent with the mainstream views in cancer biology any longer. The mutagenesis process and the cancer induction process are complicated, and have many steps (although he points out that leukemia can be induced by a single transposition event--- I am surprised by that statement, but maybe it's true). I don't assume that his analysis makes use of this hypothesis, but I think that he is pointing to the central theoretical issue here--- is the process of cancer induction caused by a single molecular event? This is, I believe, the main theoretical assumption that is being challenged by LNT opponents or hormesis proponents.Likebox (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

LNT Supporting Studies: Radon In Miners

I am still evaluating these, but the secondary article gave some indication of the question to ask (I am repeating from the LNT page):

1. The miner exposures is said to be high in the secondary literature--- does the data support linearity in the regime where hormesis is being debated?
2. The miner exposures are said to be sporadic in the secondary litarature. Is sporadic high-exposure data fairly extrapolatable to continuous low doses?Likebox (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, look at figure 3. This shows the exposure levels and the strong linearity. Pdbailey (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that. The error bars on these things are large enough to support 0 effect or hormesis or anything else.Likebox (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

LNT neutral/Possibly hormesis supporting Study: Radon in Homeowners

The article you pointed to had literature on homeowner data where they said that this data was inconclusive, and required compensating adjustments. It is not clear whether the confusion is due to some hormesis sneaking in. I will try to look at this study too.Likebox (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One Day Exposure

Look--- The sentence which says that no study has shown more than one day of protective effect, but the cancer study on irradiated animals takes a long time. You can't measure cancer response in a day. Please stop reinserting that.Likebox (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacement for Taiwan study

Here's a citation for a hormesis supporting study:

CASE-CONTROL STUDY OF LUNG CANCER RISK FROM RESIDENTIAL RADON EXPOSURE IN WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.

Paper

Health Physics. The Radiation Safety Journal. 94(3):228-241, March 2008. Thompson, Richard E. *; Nelson, Donald F. +; Popkin, Joel H. ++; Popkin, Zenaida ++

Are there any problems with this article or journal?Likebox (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

HPS is peer reviewed. Again, I want to portray that there is a set of evidence for hormesis and against LNT on this page and the LNT page. It is undeniably in the literature. That said, the consensus is in favor of using continuing to use LNT, and never flat out rejects LNT (the French report just says they might consider it at some future date). I don't want the whole page to make it look like (a) hormesis is decided to be true or (b) some mean ugly set of scientists is trying to keep down The Truth by ignoring and suppressing tons of research (which is what the article looks like to me now). Pdbailey (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in total agreement then, and only our biases are in conflict. I think the solution would be to insert the citations to the literature you dug up in the "studies on low level radiation" section, to give that a balance.Likebox (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops--- it already gets prominent mention in the article. I should stop editing this thing.Likebox (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Study

Just to concede--- I probably shouldn't have been so gung ho about that Taiwan study. Some of the conclusions in the published study do seem to be unsupported because of no breakdowns into proper comparison groups. The age breakdown isn't done from data, they do it by just by assuming the age distribution of the affected population is the same as the general population. They should have been broken down by age. That might be enough to explain why they make the wild claims there about the cancer rate falling to 3% of the population at large--- that can't be right (sorry). There are parts of the study that might not be affected, though, like the incidence of birth defects.Likebox (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Taiwan study is of no value, it was published in an unreliable journal and it has poor methodology. Young couples bought most of the newly built Cobalt-60 contaminated apartments. The radiation exposed population should have been compared to a population with the same age demographic, not the Twain national average. Taiwanese tend to live in large family units that includes children, parents & grandparents, so its no wonder the cancer rate was lower in the much younger radiation exposed group. The paper is a transparent con. The fact that it led to the production of at least two TV science documentaries is lamentable. -Diamonddavej (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am sorry for suggesting otherwise earlier. The age business didn't occur to me until a day or two after I read the article, and its obvious that young people tend to buy new apartments. But I think that this article should be discussed, so as to debunk it, so other people won't be fooled.Likebox (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again with the order! Sheesh

This article is called "radiation hormesis". It is not called "the opinion of U.S. nuclear bodies concerning hormesis". A claimed effect should be explained, and the reasons people believe it should be listed. Then the opinions of the nuclear bodies, whose opinion is just one political faction among many.

The previous order of the lead, in which the opinion of the French nuclear bodies is explicity marginalized compared with the U.S. nuclear bodies is not reasonable. In order to be fair, this has to be a "on the one hand the French", "on the other hand the Americans" sort of thing. To say "The Americans say blah blah blah, and the French weirdly stand alone in opposition" is ridiculous, especially that there is debate on this subject in the U.S. too.Likebox (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the US vs France. It is the US and the UN versus the country that has gone head over heals for nuclear. That said, I actually think that the way it currently reads is less favorable to Hormesis than the other ordering, so I won't touch the lead now.

On the article layout, let me ask you this, should the article on haunted houses start with a laundry list of mysterious occurrences at houses, or the consensus on haunted houses? It doesn't matter what the topic is, the policy is to focus on NPOV, not on taking a POV flattering to the article's title. PDBailey (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article was pretty bad, but not horrendous, when I last removed the tag. Then the page looked like this. Notably, at that time the article has the order I prefer. Since then we have had things like adding the Thompson et al. article in two spots (seriously?). and the list of "counter articles" just gets longer. I would say that the tightest article would have the consensus articles and experts (from the French as well as the international and US bodies). Then there could be maybe 3-6 articles that really stand out for mention on both sides. Now we have about 30 on just one side. There is simply no way this represents NPOV. PDBailey (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An article on haunted houses should, in my opinion, describe what a haunted house is, make a list of some notable houses that were believed to be haunted, then explain that scientific consensus is that there is no haunting effect in houses. That's how you treat a subject. Don't assume that readers are so gullible as to believe that just because an effect has a name that it is real.

The reason that there are 30 supporting articles is because the consensus view is that this effect is nonexistent--- a minority view is more newsworthy and the studies that support it are more notable, precisely because they conflict with the established view. The order of sections does not change the neutrality of the article--- it just puts the more informative stuff up front, where it serves to define the term and list the positive evidence (sort of like listing haunted houses). Then the consensus view of the nuclear bodies, and then the conclusion. Let the reader make up his or her own mind.

Whether the lead is more "positive seeming" or "negative seeming" toward hormesis is not important for me. It should just note that this is an undecided question, with supporters on both sides. I tend to believe in hormesis and you don't. So what. We'll know the answer in a few years when there are more conclusive studies. Until then, neither one of us should make ourselves look foolish by pushing too hard on one point of view.Likebox (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just read haunted house. It doesn't start with "Opinions of skeptical scientists" section.Likebox (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Instead of inserting this very unhelpful tag, why don't you just clean up the offending statements, or at least say what those statements are. I can't identify them--- the whole thing just sounds like a laundry list of supporting and opposing sentiments, and the sentiments opposing hormesis get slightly more weight, just as they should. I am sorry to remove the tag, but it seems completely unsupportable.Likebox (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Likebox,

(1) if you read the text of the POV tag it reads, in part, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I would ask that you follow that request.

(2) You asked, "why don't you just clean up the offending statements." This suggests that there is no possible reason for the NPOV tag. If you want to make that argument, please do so at the appropriate talk page. I'd suggest Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute.

(3) you continue, "or at least say what those statements are." From above:

Since then we have had things like adding the Thompson et al. article in two spots (seriously?). and the list of "counter articles" just gets longer. I would say that the tightest article would have the consensus articles and experts (from the French as well as the international and US bodies). Then there could be maybe 3-6 articles that really stand out for mention on both sides. Now we have about 30 on just one side. There is simply no way this represents NPOV.

To be clearer in this line note that the paragraph of the BEIR VII report reads:

the preponderance of available experimental information does not support the contention that low levels of ionizing radiation have a beneficial effect. The mechanism of any such possible effect remains obscure. At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted

The article should, in general, be harmonious with this conclusion, or at the very least not stray out side of the French reports conclusion that, in the words of the Wikipedia article, "they cautioned that it is not yet known if radiation hormesis occurs outside the laboratory, in humans." That said, it is fine for the article to contain a hand full of claims outside of this so long as the bear the caveats that, "in the authors opinion." or a similar phrase. You may be interested in Wikipedia policy on this, which is that it is inappropriate to give undue location or space to proponents of this concept according the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight.

(5) have you read the second excerpted paragraph from the BEIR VII report? It reads (citation in the article)

In chronic low-dose experiments with dogs (75 mGy/d for the duration of life), vital hematopoietic progenitors showed increased radioresistance along with renewed proliferative capacity (Seed and Kaspar 1992). Under the same conditions, a subset of animals showed an increased repair capacity as judged by the unscheduled DNA synthesis assay (Seed and Meyers 1993). Although one might interpret these observations as an adaptive effect at the cellular level, the exposed animal population experienced a high incidence of myeloid leukemia and related myeloproliferative disorders. The authors concluded that “the acquisition of radioresistance and associated repair functions under the strong selective and mutagenic pressure of chronic radiation is tied temporally and causally to leukemogenic transformation by the radiation exposure” (Seed and Kaspar 1992).

In light of this, it seem inappropriate to simply lift a few conclusions from papers without showing all sides of what is happening in the system. PDBailey (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(1-2) Ok-- I agree. We have an NPOV dispute.

(3) I looked for the double-mention of Thompson, and couldn't find it.

(4-5) The "BEIR VII" report is not useful in resolving this, since they are just reading the literature and coming to the most prudent consensus. If this article was called "The most prudent expert view on hormesis", that report would be its content. What I am disputing is you seizing on this report as independent evidence against hormesis. It is secondary literature, it adds nothing in itself except an informed opinion. That opinion is stated in the article--- the conclusion of the commission was that there is no hormesis.

If you would like to add the dog study as evidence that leukemia is not hormetic, please do so. But do it by citing and quoting the original study. From the original study you can get a lot better information on the incidence of leukemia, the size of the population, what were the effects of the doses, where they fall on the claimed hormesis curve, all the stuff that is left out in a vague sentence like "The exposed animal population experienced a high incidence of myeloid leukema", and the conclusions of the authors, which might be correct, or might be premature.Likebox (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, we appear to disagree on what Wikipedia articles should be. Thankfully, there is policy on this! When I read, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." I see that the article on radiation hormesis should mostly regard it as a possible but as of yet unproven claim. This article clearly does not do that. There is nothing in there about appeals to the article's title, or that POV is okay so long as the article title suggests that it should be there. PDBailey (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how fringe the views are. If you are talking about telekinesis, then ok. But I don't even know how fring hormesis is. What's your guess on the split is in the scientific community?

From a scant reading in the literature, I would guess that the split among scientists (at least those who care) is something like 70% LNT 30% hormesis. I would also guess that among physicists and the like, it more like 80/20, while among biologists its more like 50/50. You seem to think that it's 98/2, and you are writing that way. This is not reasonable.Likebox (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we agree (at the least) that the majority view is against hormesis. So the first section (undue bias) should regard that rejection. Now, lets move on to the articles. If you want the NPOV tag to go, the article should have more representation of anti-hormesis articles/paragraphs. PDBailey (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, you're completely misunderstanding WP:undue_weight. Undue weight is designed to make sure that fringe theories don't get too much attention as opposed to mainstream theories. By the standards of undue weight, both Hormesis and LNT are mainstream theories. LNT is the "majority" opinion, while "radiation hormesis" is the minority opinion (I think).

So the lead prominently states that leading bodies reject LNT, and emphasizes again that this is not accepted lore, but a contested bit of science.

The rest of the article is there to explain the concept. It's a relatively mainstream point of view which has its adherents and its literature. So we put that in. Then we say again "no, no, leading bodies don't agree with this", then finally, we go on to the lively debate.

All of this is well and good. But now you want to flip the order around so that the article reads like a "debunking" of hormesis. I still maintain that this is inappropriate.Likebox (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that in order to be balanced, the article should have more pro-LNT studies and stuff. The problem is, I think that LNT is wrong, and if that's true, there aren't going to be any honest studies that show it is right. So the paucity of studies in the domain of dispute that support LNT might just be because LNT is wrong. Or it might be because there were too few studies. Time will tell.Likebox (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, you make a good point. How about this organization. (0) lead; (1) description of Hormesis; (1b) optional sub section on possible mechanisms; (2) current section titled, "Rejection by Leading Nuclear Bodies", but lets change the title to a more neutral, "Non-acceptance by leading nuclear bodies." (3) a section titled "Ongoing Debate" that says that this is still an open question, citing litterature, but focusing on solid paragraphs over just listing articles with one sentence descriptions of them. PDBailey (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read Wikipedia:SCICON which has a section on Arbitration Committee findings on scientific consensus in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I would argue that the POV that hormesis has not been shown in humans is agreed upon has significant references. PDBailey (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure--- if somebody is willing to do the extra work. I was just globbing together stuff that other people already wrote, with minor alterations.Likebox (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Since there were no changes, I reverted it back.

These points of view are almost universally accepted:

1. hormesis has not been shown in humans.
2. lack of hormesis has not been shown in humans.
3. LNT has been shown approximately valid for large doses.

That's it. That's all that's known experimentally. Theoretically speaking, linear cancer from linear radiation is looking less and less probable the more that people understand the mechanisms of cancer.Likebox (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's go back to step one. We do have a POV dispute. It needs to be resolved before you can remove that tag. Do you agree with me on this? PDBailey (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on anything, especially not your evident POV that you "know" that hormesis is not real. You have no extra information that I don't have. Neither do those nuclear experts. Sorry to burst your bubble.Likebox (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

my recent edits

I removed many of the bullets under the French Academy of Sciences report because they all fell into the group: cancer is failure of apoptosis. The Cohen study was debunked because it failed to take smoking rates into account, the largest predictor of lung cancer rates. I removed all the "similar model" stuff because it is not the topic. It might be worth a "see also" link, but I would say it all fits under "hormesis" rather than "radiation hormesis." I would also emphasize that I have not yet edited the subsection, which also needs some heavy POV editing. PDBailey (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That whole section did not contain anything but a list of papers and descriptions of them. We really need more secondary references here. PDBailey (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No secondary references are \needed. Careful reading of the primary references is sufficient. The section you deleted was written originally by biologists, in an article "radiation homeostasis", which I merged with this one. In biology, unlike in nuclear science, hormetic responses are not surprising to experts. Your insistence that hormesis be treated as false (or even as particularly dubious) is getting tiresome, and I think it is time for arbitration.Likebox (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you request it, I will agree. PDBailey (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I not only request it, I request that you stop making modifications to this article altogether. Your edits have become very strange. You deleted both mentions of Cohen's study, because of your insistence that smoking was badly controlled in that study. I don't know if that's true or not, but you have to explain what you're talking about clearly and honestly, to justify this removal. You deleted other stuff just because.Likebox (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article still has a neutrality disputed tag, its been this way for more than a year, this all the more curious as the article appears to be maintained by one contributor. It suggests that the contributor disputes the neutrality of the subject itself, not the article. Also, I see all discussion of Bernard Cohen's important contributions to radiation hormesis were removed, because a contributor believes his work is flawed, appears to be POV Information suppression. This is all the more disappointing as Cohen's claims are notable, they are widely championed and criticized. Cohen's claims should be reinstated and appropriately balanced by a critical paper or two. I approve the intentions of the statement at the end of the article regarding the flawed Taiwanese study, it should stop it from reappearing again, but it is a personal view. Wouldn't it be better to find a article criticising that study? --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement on the Taiwan study should be covered under undue weight--- all professionals know the study is flawed and if they think about it they know why. It's too obvious a flaw to publish an article about. There seems to be nobody contesting the statement now, except for you, and you agree with the intent. I don't know if there is a literature source for it.Likebox (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is. I just came across this paper by Hwang et al. (2006) that roundly refutes the hormesis claims of Chen et al. (2004). Hwang et al. (2006) found an increase in cancer in the Co-60 exposed group, though only amongst people below the age of 30. This maybe due to the rarity of old people in the exposed group. Indeed, its alleged that Chen et al. (2004) made up their hormesis claims by inappropriately comparing the exposed group, predominantly made up of young couples that moved into brand new Co-60 contaminated apartments, with the much older Taiwanese general population. They should have used aged matched controls. I read a response by W.L. Chen, who arm waved that people in Taiwan usually live in extended family groups, with their grandparents, so no age matched controls were needed. --Diamonddavej (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(backdent) Hi, Diamonddavej, there is a POV dispute, if you want to talk about what a POV dispute is, what it is over, and what can be done to resolve it, this is the place. Please do not remove the tag until the POV dispute has been resolved. PDBailey (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It was me that removed the tag, and I just did so again. The reason is because there is now a good study which supports LNT regarding leukemia, which is the rebuttal to the Taiwan study. Now there is a balance between positive animal study and a cautiously negative human study. I think you would be in a very small minority of people who think this article is biased. You cannot create a dispute where none reasonably exists by inserting a tag. I think the best way to resolve this is by a request for comments.Likebox (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't remove the tag. Personally, I think people can get too caught up in the details, the minutiae. Perhaps the Expanding Earth page could be used as a guide to improve this article, it has successfully dealt with a minority view point without endorsing it, and it also clearly describes why it is rejected. I'm sure the same can be achieved here. I suggest the Radiation hormesis page could adopt the structure/sections of the Expanding Earth article, there is still allot to add. I would like a history section. Also, I agree that the article is now balanced. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the two of you do not see POV issues on this page, but that is not what is at issue, nor is my position unclear. I can copy and paste it from above if that would help. PDBailey (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with fundamental requirement that article cannot lend support to Radiation Hormesis. The Expanding Earth article has succeeded in this regard quite well (the consensus is plate tectonics, much like LNT is to Radiation Hormesis). When describing Radiation Hormesis it maybe best to describe it in boarder terms, rather give a plethora of individual competing studies and experiments, often of variable merit. There needs to be a de-emphasis on the individual papers and more emphasis on advocates views, it could be written like e.g

John is a well known ardent supporter of Radiation Hormesis, in 1996 he conducted an epidemiological study into lung cancer rates and radon gas, which he claimed supported Radiation Hormesis. Since his claims were at variance with all previous epidemiological studies, his claims caught the attention of the heath protection community, many of whom attempted to replicated his findings. However, most later studies upheld the LNT model, except for one study in Japan.

See that the passage does not include the details from John's paper or the other studies, it just sticks to the overall point that John believes X, and other people believe Y. I think if the article is more general, there is less likelihood of disagreements over with poor stats, confounding factors, I don't like Cohen etc.

I'm just exploring if there is a way out of this impasse; reading back over the talk page, it seems many disagreements occur over specific papers and claims made (details). So, maybe it would be better to try to keep things as general as possible. --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Expanding earth was always more fringe than hormesis. Hormesis is not that fringe, it's just a minority opinion. Because this is an open scientific question, and consensus now tilts against hormesis, it is best to list stuff with neutrality. There's no undue weight--- both sides are given space with balance--- and a reader who read this would come away with the impression "gosh, nobody knows for sure", which is exactly the situation right now. So why do we need a tag?Likebox (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Diamonddavej, the proposed writing style strikes me as a good example of what this article might look when it does not need an NPOV tag. In addition, I think the article should focus on secondary sources since these abound on this topic. In addition, since the peer reviewed bodies allow for the possibility of radiation hormesis combined with the primary literature supporting the view, I think that the article should mention some counter points, attributing claims to the author. However, I think three to four paragraphs rather than a list is the way to go. PDBailey (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To give balance to the parable of John the scientist I'll give my own: a bunch of people believed LNT, taught it for years, and never tested it for low doses. Jane went into the laboratory, did some cancer experiments for unrelated reasons, and, to her suprise, found that LNT was likely to be wrong. Jane published her findings, expecting some acclaim, but instead got virulent attacks from ignorant people who didn't really care if she was right or not, only in what was generally accepted. Her only supporters were a bunch of fringe scientists, who had their own agenda. Her story repeated and again, and then, all of a sudden, a charismatic mainstream figure took up their cause. After that there were a bunch of people advocating hormesis in the mainstream literature, but their studies were still not cited, and their reputation didn't improve.

Stuff doesn't get into textbooks after a deep vetting process. What's in books is a poor carbon copy of a carbon copy of somebody's best guess at the truth. Fortunately, Wikipedia discusses things not in the order of importance that they are given in textbooks, but in the order of notability and verifiability through all literature sources, including primary sources, which reflect actual human knowledge, unbleached and unpasteurized. Maybe hormesis is wrong, but I don't see conclusive primary literature, and then all the secondary literature in the world is just a bag of hot air.Likebox (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)