Misplaced Pages

Radiation hormesis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:16, 31 December 2008 editLikebox (talk | contribs)6,376 edits →Taiwan Study: Please--- this study is worthless, and the reference explicitly says so.← Previous edit Revision as of 06:56, 31 December 2008 edit undoLikebox (talk | contribs)6,376 edits →Proposed mechanism and ongoing debate: make clearer and brieferNext edit →
Line 94: Line 94:
Proponents of radiation hormesis accept that high radiation levels are harmful; that intense artificial radiation, for example, is toxic. But they believe that low levels of radiation, comparable to the ] are not harmful. The subject of radiation hormesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years, perhaps because of its counter-intuitive properties. Opinion pieces on chemical and radiobiological hormesis appeared in the journals ]<ref name="Calabrese"/> and ]<ref name ="Kaiser"/> in 2003. Proponents of radiation hormesis accept that high radiation levels are harmful; that intense artificial radiation, for example, is toxic. But they believe that low levels of radiation, comparable to the ] are not harmful. The subject of radiation hormesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years, perhaps because of its counter-intuitive properties. Opinion pieces on chemical and radiobiological hormesis appeared in the journals ]<ref name="Calabrese"/> and ]<ref name ="Kaiser"/> in 2003.


While most major studies have upheld the Linear no-threshold model (LNT) and rejected the existence of radiation hormesis in humans, according to the 2005 ]-]'s report concerning the effects of low-level radiation, acknowledge that 40% of laboratory studies on cell cultures and animals observed radiobiological hormesis,<ref name="Aurengo"/> and they state: While most major studies have used the linear no-threshold model (LNT), so that they reject radiation hormesis by default, according to the 2005 ]-]'s report concerning the effects of low-level radiation, approximately 40% of laboratory studies on cell cultures and animals report some sort of radiobiological hormesis.<ref name="Aurengo"/> They state:


<blockquote>''"...its existence in the laboratory is beyond question and its mechanism of action appears well understood."''</blockquote> <blockquote>''"...its existence in the laboratory is beyond question and its mechanism of action appears well understood."''</blockquote>


In their 2005 report, the ]-] outlined the growing body of research that illustrates that the human body is not a passive accumulator of ] damage but it actively repairs the damage caused via number of different processes, including:<ref name="Aurengo"/> They go on to outlined the growing body of research that illustrates that the human body is not a passive accumulator of ] damage but it actively repairs the damage caused via number of different processes, including:<ref name="Aurengo"/>


* Mechanisms that mitigate ] species generated by ionising radiation and ]. * Mechanisms that mitigate ] species generated by ionising radiation and ].
Line 109: Line 109:
* A large increase in tumours in ] individuals illustrates that the immune system efficiently destroys aberrant cells and nascent tumors. * A large increase in tumours in ] individuals illustrates that the immune system efficiently destroys aberrant cells and nascent tumors.


However, ]-] cautioned that it is not known, based on laboratory studies, if radiation hormesis occurs in the general population and they rejected its use in the assessment of radiation risk. Instead, they rejected both Radiation Hormesis and the popular ] model, and instead proposed that below a certain threshold, low to moderate levels of natural radiation poses no risk to human health. However, ]-] cautioned that it is not known if radiation hormesis occurs in people, and they rejected its use in the assessment of radiation risk. They also rejected the popular ] model, and instead proposed that below a certain threshold comparable to natural radiation, low to moderate levels of radiation poses no risk to human health.


Most epidemiological studies on populations of people have upheld ] and therefore reject radiation hormesis by default. But ] studies at the lowest levels of radiation are very difficult do carry out due to confounding factors. For example, smoking rates (or even patterns in reporting smoking) cause huge problems in estimating excess cancer rates in observational studies. Most epidemiological studies on populations of people have used ] without noting a contradiction, so these studies reject radiation hormesis by default. But ] studies at the lowest levels of radiation are very difficult to interpret because of confounding factors. For example, smoking rates (or even patterns in reporting smoking) cause huge problems in estimating excess cancer rates in observational studies.


Radon gas in homes is the largest source of radiation dose for most individuals and it is generally advised that the dose be kept below 150 Bq/m^3 (4 pCi/L).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/pressreleases/sg01132005.html |title=Surgeon General Releases National Health Advisory On Radon |accessdate=28 November 2008 |publisher=US HHS Office of the Surgeon General |date=January 12, 2005 }}</ref> A recent retrospective case-control study of lung cancer risk showed substantial cancer rate reduction between 50 and 123 Bq per cubic meter relative to a group at zero to 25 Bq per cubic meter.<ref>{{Cite journal Radon gas in homes is the largest source of radiation dose for most individuals and it is generally advised that the dose be kept below 150 Bq/m^3 (4 pCi/L).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/pressreleases/sg01132005.html |title=Surgeon General Releases National Health Advisory On Radon |accessdate=28 November 2008 |publisher=US HHS Office of the Surgeon General |date=January 12, 2005 }}</ref> A recent retrospective case-control study of lung cancer risk showed substantial cancer rate reduction between 50 and 123 Bq per cubic meter relative to a group at zero to 25 Bq per cubic meter.<ref>{{Cite journal
Line 127: Line 127:
| doi = 10.1097/01.HP.0000288561.53790.5f | doi = 10.1097/01.HP.0000288561.53790.5f
| doi_brokendate = 2008-07-04 | doi_brokendate = 2008-07-04
}}</ref> This study is evidence for hormesis, a single study all by itself cannot be regarded as definitive. Other studies into the effects of domestic ] exposure have not reported a hormetic effect; including for example the respected "Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study" of Field et al. (2000), which also used sophisticated radon exposure ].<ref> }}</ref> This study is evidence for hormesis, but a single study all by itself cannot be regarded as definitive. Other studies into the effects of domestic ] exposure have not reported a hormetic effect; including for example the respected "Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study" of Field et al. (2000), which also used sophisticated radon exposure ].<ref>
{{Cite journal {{Cite journal
| volume = 151 | volume = 151

Revision as of 06:56, 31 December 2008

Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that chronic low doses of ionizing radiation are beneficial, stimulating repair mechanisms that protect against disease. The Académie des Sciences — Académie nationale de Médecine (French Academy of Sciences — National Academy of Medicine) stated in their 2005 report concerning the effects of low-level radiation that many laboratory studies have observed radiation hormesis. However, they cautioned that it is not yet known if radiation hormesis occurs outside the laboratory, in humans.

Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) have upheld the Linear no-threshold model (LNT), concluding that radiation is dangerous no matter how low the exposure and discounting the existence of radiation hormesis in humans.


Proposed mechanism and ongoing debate

Proponents of radiation hormesis accept that high radiation levels are harmful; that intense artificial radiation, for example, is toxic. But they believe that low levels of radiation, comparable to the natural background level of radiation are not harmful. The subject of radiation hormesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years, perhaps because of its counter-intuitive properties. Opinion pieces on chemical and radiobiological hormesis appeared in the journals Nature and Science in 2003.

While most major studies have used the linear no-threshold model (LNT), so that they reject radiation hormesis by default, according to the 2005 French Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Medicine's report concerning the effects of low-level radiation, approximately 40% of laboratory studies on cell cultures and animals report some sort of radiobiological hormesis. They state:

"...its existence in the laboratory is beyond question and its mechanism of action appears well understood."

They go on to outlined the growing body of research that illustrates that the human body is not a passive accumulator of radiation damage but it actively repairs the damage caused via number of different processes, including:

However, French Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Medicine cautioned that it is not known if radiation hormesis occurs in people, and they rejected its use in the assessment of radiation risk. They also rejected the popular LNT model, and instead proposed that below a certain threshold comparable to natural radiation, low to moderate levels of radiation poses no risk to human health.

Most epidemiological studies on populations of people have used LNT without noting a contradiction, so these studies reject radiation hormesis by default. But Epidemiological studies at the lowest levels of radiation are very difficult to interpret because of confounding factors. For example, smoking rates (or even patterns in reporting smoking) cause huge problems in estimating excess cancer rates in observational studies.

Radon gas in homes is the largest source of radiation dose for most individuals and it is generally advised that the dose be kept below 150 Bq/m^3 (4 pCi/L). A recent retrospective case-control study of lung cancer risk showed substantial cancer rate reduction between 50 and 123 Bq per cubic meter relative to a group at zero to 25 Bq per cubic meter. This study is evidence for hormesis, but a single study all by itself cannot be regarded as definitive. Other studies into the effects of domestic radon exposure have not reported a hormetic effect; including for example the respected "Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study" of Field et al. (2000), which also used sophisticated radon exposure dosimetry.

Given the uncertain effects of low-level radiation, there is a pressing need for quality research in this area. An expert panel convened at the 2006 Ultra-Low-Level Radiation Effects Summit at Carlsbad, New Mexico, proposed the construction of an Ultra-Low-Level Radiation laboratory. The laboratory, if built, will investigate the effects of almost no radiation on laboratory animals and cell cultures, and it will compare these groups to control groups exposed to natural radiation levels. The expert panel believes that the Ultra-Low-Level Radiation laboratory is the only experiment that can explore with authority and confidence the effects of low-level radiation; that it can confirm or discard the various radiobiological effects proposed at low radiation levels e.g. LNT, threshold and radiation hormesis.

Statements by leading nuclear bodies

Radiation hormesis has been rejected by both the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. In addition, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most recent report:

Until the uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

This is a reference to the fact that very low doses of radiation have only marginal impacts on individual health outcomes. It is therefore difficult to detect the 'signal' of decreased or increased morbidity and mortality due to low-level radiation exposure in the 'noise' of other effects. The notion of radiation hormesis has been rejected by the National Research Council's (part of the National Academy of Sciences) 16 year long study on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure" says Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston . See the National Academies Press book Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2.

The possibility that low doses of radiation may have beneficial effects (a phenomenon often referred to as “hormesis”) has been the subject of considerable debate. Evidence for hormetic effects was reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Although examples of apparent stimulatory or protective effects can be found in cellular and animal biology, 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 .
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) .

Studies of Low Level Radiation

Over the years, many studies have been carried out on the effects of low level radiation. Despite that, there are no agreed answers. Studies which conflict with the dominant view (LNT) are more notable and could be more likely to be published.

Studies in Animals and Cultures

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A study by E.I. Azzam suggested that pre-exposure to radiation causes cells to turn on protection mechanisms, , while Otsuka and collaborators find that the same is true for whole animals . Miyachi conducted a study on mice and found that a 200 mGy X-ray dose protects mice against both further X-ray exposure and ozone gas. In another rodent study, Sakai and collaborators found that (1 mGy hr-1) gamma irradiation prevents the development of cancer (induced by chemical means, injection of methylcholanthrene). A different study by de Toledo and collaborators, has shown that irradiation with gamma rays increases the concentration of glutathione, an antioxidant found in cells.

In a 2006 paper 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 states 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. Likewise it has been reported that fractionation of gamma irradiation reduces the likelihood of a neoplastic transformation . Pre-exposure to fast neutrons and gamma rays from Cs-137 is reported to increase the ability of a second dose to induce a neoplastic transformation.

Taiwan Study

In popular treatments of radiation hormesis, a study of apartment buildings in Taiwan accidentally contaminated with Cobalt-60 has received prominent attention. This study has next to no scientific value, because it compares the irradiated population with the much older general population of Taiwan. A subsequent study by Hwang et al. (2006) found a significant exposure-dependent increase in cancer in the irradiated population, particularly leukemia in men and thyroid cancer in women, though this trend is only detected amongst those who were first exposed before the age of 30.

See also

External links

References

  1. ^ Calabrese, Edward J (2003-02-13). "Toxicology rethinks its central belief". Nature. 421 (6924): 691–692. doi:10.1038/421691a. ISSN 0028-0836. Retrieved 2008-04-01. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. Feinendegen, L.E. (2005). "Evidence for beneficial low-level radiation effects and radiation hormesis". British Journal of Radiology. 78: 3–7. doi:10.1259/bjr/63353075. PMID 15673519.
  3. ^ Kaiser, Jocelyn (2003-10-17). "HORMESIS: Sipping From a Poisoned Chalice". Science. 302 (5644): 376–379. doi:10.1126/science.302.5644.376. PMID 14563981. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
  4. Wolff, S. (1998-02). "The adaptive response in radiobiology: evolving insights and implications". Environmental Health Perspectives. 106 (1): 277–283. doi:10.2307/3433927. PMID 9539019. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. Calabrese, Edward J. (2004-06-01). "Hormesis: from marginalization to mainstream: A case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment" (PDF). Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 197 (2): 125–136. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2004.02.007. Retrieved 2008-04-01.
  6. Duport, P. (2003-09-11). "A database of cancer induction by low-dose radiation in mammals: overview and initial observations" (PDF). International Journal of Low Radiation. International Journal of Low Radiation. 1 (11): 120–131. doi:10.1504/IJLR.2003.003488. Retrieved 2008-04-01.
  7. ^ Aurengo; et al. (2005-03-30). "Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation." (PDF). Académie des Sciences & Académie nationale de Médecine. Retrieved 2008-03-27. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  8. "Surgeon General Releases National Health Advisory On Radon". US HHS Office of the Surgeon General. January 12, 2005. Retrieved 28 November 2008.
  9. Thompson, Richard E (2008-03). "Case-control study of lung cancer risk from residential radon exposure in Worcester county, Massachusetts". Health physics. 94 (3): 228–41. doi:10.1097/01.HP.0000288561.53790.5f. ISSN 0017-9078. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |doi_brokendate= ignored (|doi-broken-date= suggested) (help)
  10. Field, R. William (2000-06-01). "Residential Radon Gas Exposure and Lung Cancer: The Iowa Radon Lung Cancer Study". Am. J. Epidemiol. 151 (11): 1091–1102. PMID 10873134. Retrieved 2008-04-03. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) studies
  11. ^ "Ultra-Low-Level Radiation Effects Summit." January 2006. ORION International Technologies, Inc. (ORION) and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 03 Apr. 2008.
  12. http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2
  13. NCRP Report No. 136 — Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation
  14. UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT Vol. II: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Annex G: Biological effects at low radiation doses. page 160, paragraph 541. Available online at .
  15. Azzam, E.I. (1994). 138(1): S28 – S31. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Journal= ignored (|journal= suggested) (help)
  16. "Activation of Antioxidative Enzymes Induced by Low-Dose-Rate Whole-Body γ Irradiation: Adaptive Response in Terms of Initial DNA Damage". 166(3). 2006: 474–478. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Text "Journal -Radiation Research" ignored (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  17. Y Miyachi (2000). The British Journal of Radiology. 73: 298–304. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. Sakai, Kazuo; Iwasaki, Toshiyasu; Hoshi, Yuko; Nomura, Takaharu; Oda, Takeshi; Fujita, Kazuko; Yamada, Takeshi; Tanooka, Hiroshi. International Congress Series (2002) 1236 (Radiation and Homoeostasis): 487-490. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. Sonia M. de Toledo, Nesrin Asaad, Perumal Venkatachalam, Ling Li, Roger W. Howell, Douglas R. Spitz and Edouard I. Azzam (2006). Radiation Research. 166(6): 849–857. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. Elmore, E.; Lao, X.-Y.; Kapadia, R.; Redpath, J. L. (2006). "The effect of dose rate on radiation- induced neoplastic transformation in vitro by low doses of low-LET radiation". Radiation Research. 166(6): 832–838.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. C.K. Hill, A. Han, F. Buonaguro and M.M. Elkind (1984). "Multifractionation Of Co-60 Gamma-Rays Reduces Neoplastic Transformation in vitro". Carcinogenesis. 5: 193.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. J. Cao, R.I. Wells and M.M. Elkind (1992). "Enhanced Sensitivity To Neoplastic Transformation By Cs-137 Gamma-Rays Of Cells In The G2-/M-Phase Age Interval". International Journal of Radiation Biology. 62: 191.
  23. Hwang, S-L (2006-12). "Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low dose-rate gamma-radiation exposure in radiocontaminated buildings, 1983-2002". International Journal of Radiation Biology. 82 (12): 849–58. doi:V8662J8R606731L3. ISSN 0955-3002. Retrieved 2008-12-13. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Categories:
Radiation hormesis: Difference between revisions Add topic