2005年に国際ホルミシス学会(International Dose-Response Society)が発足され、学術雑誌としてDose Response誌を発行している。Dose Response誌の2011年現在の編集長は、マサチューセッツ大学のホルミシス研究者、エドワード・キャラブレス(Edward J. Calabrese)とバーバラ・キャラハン(Barbara G. Callahan)が勤める[88]。編集委員には規制当局側のEPAやFDAの他に、ダウ・ケミカルやR.J.レイノルズ・タバコ・カンパニー、シンジェンタ(Syngenta Central Toxicology Laboratory)などの企業からも受け入れている[88]。共同編集者にはモンサント社や米国エネルギー省、アメリカ空軍などのメンバーも含む[88]。編集長のキャラブレスは、化学物質に対して、高用量で有害な影響を持つものでも、低用量では有益な影響を有するホルミシス効果があるとして、低用量で有益なら厳しい規制の必要性はなく、健康基準に関しても緩和すべきだとの主張を行っているため批判もある[89]。キャラブレスの研究は、国防省から研究資金を受けているとの指摘もある[90]。
一般社団法人 ホルミシス臨床研究会
日本国内におけるホルミシス普及を目的とした機関。
学会からの反応
放射線・科学・健康協会
1996年に、トーマス・ラッキー、『私はなぜ原子力を選択するか―21世紀への最良の選択』(The Nuclear Energy Option)(ISBN 4900622052)[91]の著者でもあるピッツバーグ大学名誉教授のバーナード・コーエン(Bernard Cohen)、近藤宗平、電力中央研究所の服部禎男等によって、米国のNPO団体として、放射線・科学・健康協会(Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.:RSH)が設立された[92][93]。
^Thomas D. Luckey (1980). Hormesis With Ionizing Radiation. CRC Press. ISBN 0849358418.
^ abLuckey T. D.,松平寛通(監訳):放射線ホルミシス、 ソフトサイエンス社(1990)、同:放射線ホルミシス(2),ソフトサイエンス社(1993)。東嶋和子著 『放射線利用の基礎知識』 講談社
^T. D. Luckey (2008). “Atomic Bomb Health Benefits”. Dose Response6. doi:10.2203/dose-response.08-009.Luckey. PMID 19088902.
^放射線ホルミシスとは何か
^Sue Wareham, “20. The Nuclear Industry: A History of Misleading Claims”, The Briefing Papers, energyscience, http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP20%20Misleading.pdf2011年6月18日閲覧, "The nuclear industry, however, continues to downplay the risks and even promote the largely discredited notion of “hormesis”, the idea that a bit of radiation is good for us."
^Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) (paperback ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. vii. ISBN 978-1573317573. "When it became impossible to hide the obvious increase in radiation-related diseases, attempts were made to explain it away as being a result of nationwide fear. At the same time some concepts of modern radiobiology were suddenly revised. For example, contrary to elementary observations about the nature of the primary interactions of ionizing radiation and the molecular structure of cells, a campaign began to deny nonthreshold radiation effects. On the basis of the effects of small doses of radiation in some nonhuman systems where hormesis was noted, some scientists began to insist that such doses from Chernobyl would actually benefit humans and all other living things."
^Masaaki Mifune et al. (1992). “Cancer Mortality Survey in a Spa Area (Misasa, Japan) with a High Radon Background”. Japanese Journal of Cancer Research (2003年にCancer Science誌に改題)83 (1): 1-5. doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.1992.tb02342.x.
^Weimin Ye et al. (1998). “Mortality and Cancer Incidence in Misasa, Japan, a Spa Area with Elevated Radon Levels”. Japanese Journal of Cancer Research (2003年にCancer Science誌に改題)89 (8): 789–796. doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.1998.tb00630.x. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1349-7006.1998.tb00630.x/abstract. "The mortality rates from all causes exhibited no difference between the elevated radon level area and the control area for both sexes."
^Weimin Ye et al. (2000). “Residential Radon Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk in Misasa, Japan: a Case-control Study”. Journal of Radiation Research41 (2): 81-92. doi:10.1269/jrr.41.81. https://doi.org/10.1269/jrr.41.81.
^W.L. Chen et al. (2007). “Effects of Cobalt-60 Exposure on Health of Taiwan Residents Suggest New Approach Needed in Radiation Protection”. Dose Response5 (1): 63–75. doi:10.2203/dose-response.06-105.Chen. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/. "On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced—to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced—to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public."
^Su-Lun Hwang et al. (2008). “Estimates of relative risks for cancers in a population after prolonged low-dose-rate radiation exposure: a follow-up assessment from 1983 to 2005”. Radiation Research170 (2): 143-148. doi:10.1667/RR0732.1. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR0732.1. "Cases were identified from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry. Radiation effects on cancer risk were estimated using proportional hazards models and were summarized in terms of the hazard ratio associated with a 100-mGy increase in dose (HR100mGy). A significant radiation risk was observed for leukemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia (HR100mGy 1.19, 90% CI 1.01–1.31). Breast cancer exhibited a marginally significant dose response (HR100mGy 1.12, 90% CI 0.99–1.21)."
^Evan B. Douple et al. (2011). “Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness5 (1): S122-S133. http://www.dmphp.org/cgi/content/full/5/Supplement_1/S122. "Life Span Shortening. Median life expectancy decreased with increasing doses at a rate of about 1.3 years/Gy, but declined more rapidly at high doses.58"
^Evan B. Douple et al. (2011). “Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness5 (1): S122-S133. http://www.dmphp.org/cgi/content/full/5/Supplement_1/S122. "It was estimated that at 1 Gy, the proportion of total life lost was roughly 60% from solid cancer, 30% from diseases other than cancer, and 10% from leukemia."
^E. P. Ivanov et al. (1996). “Childhood leukemia in Belarus before and after the Chernobyl accident”. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics35 (2): 75-80. doi:10.1007/BF02434028.
^Andriy G. Noshchenko et al. (2010). “Radiation-induced leukemia among children aged 0-5 years at the time of the Chernobyl accident”. International Journal of Cancer127 (2): 412–426. doi:10.1002/ijc.24834. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.24834/full.
^David J. Brenner et al. (2003). “Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know”. PNAS100 (24): 13761-13766. doi:10.1073/pnas.2235592100. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.full. "This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Low-Dose Radiation Research Program."
^David J. Brenner et al. (2003). “Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know”. PNAS100 (24): 13761-13766. doi:10.1073/pnas.2235592100. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.full. "First, what is the lowest dose of x- or γ-radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer risks in humans? The epidemiological data suggest that it is ≈10–50 mSv for an acute exposure and ≈50–100 mSv for a protracted exposure."
^David J. Brenner et al. (2003). “Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know”. PNAS100 (24): 13761-13766. doi:10.1073/pnas.2235592100. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.full. "Second, what is the most appropriate way to extrapolate such cancer risk estimates to still lower doses? Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology. This linearity assumption is not necessarily the most conservative approach, and it is likely that it will result in an underestimate of some radiation-induced cancer risks and an overestimate of others."
^David J. Brenner et al. (2003). “Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know”. PNAS100 (24): 13761-13766. doi:10.1073/pnas.2235592100. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.full. "Fig. 2 shows low-dose risk estimates (2) for solid-cancer mortality in the atomic bomb survivors (1950–1997). The individuals in the dose category from 5 to 125 mSv (mean dose, 34 mSv) show a significant (P = 0.025) increase in solid-cancer-related mortality. It is possible that bias exists in these low-dose cancer-mortality risk estimates; for example, individuals nearer the blast might be more likely to have cancer recorded on their death certificates. Less potential for such bias exists in the cancer incidence studies, and the atomic bomb survivors in the dose range from 5 to 100 mSv (mean dose, 29 mSv) show a significantly increased incidence of solid cancer (P = 0.05) compared with the population who were exposed to <5 mSv (12)."
^David J. Brenner et al. (2003). “Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know”. PNAS100 (24): 13761-13766. doi:10.1073/pnas.2235592100. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.full. "First, what is the lowest dose of x- or γ-radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer risks in humans? The epidemiological data suggest that it is ≈10–50 mSv for an acute exposure and ≈50–100 mSv for a protracted exposure."
^“Alice Stewart (UK)”, Right Livelihood Award, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, オリジナルの2008年11月17日時点におけるアーカイブ。, http://www.rightlivelihood.org/stewart.pdf2011年6月18日閲覧, "While her earlier conclusions showed that there was no such thing as a harmless dose of radiation, these findings implied that all radiation protection committees had been grossly underestimating the number of cancers caused by background radiation and other low-dose situations."
^ abc“Editorial Board/Masthead”, Dose-Response, Assessing the Nature, Mechanisms, and Implications of Dose-Response Relationships: Welcome, Dose-Response, http://dose-response.com/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf2012年2月5日閲覧。
^Janet Raloff PDF(PDF) Cite 概要の紹介 (2007). “Counterintuitive toxicity: Increasingly, scientists are finding that they can't predict a poison's low-dose effects”. Science News171 (3): 40–42. doi:10.1002/scin.2007.5591710310.
^Founding Board of Directors and Officers, Radiation, Science, and Health, http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/About/board_directors.html2012年2月5日閲覧。
^Radiation, Science, and Health: Low Dose Radiation Health Effects, Hormesis, and Policy, Radiation, Science, and Health, http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/index.html2012年2月5日閲覧, "Government agencies suppress data, including radiation hormesis, and foster radiation fear."
^Radiation, Science, and Health: Low Dose Radiation Health Effects, Hormesis, and Policy, Radiation, Science, and Health, http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/index.html2012年2月5日閲覧, "Government agencies suppress data, including radiation hormesis, and foster radiation fear."
…is very low . A typical dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) instrument consists of a padded table on which the patient lies and a movable C-arm with a radiograph tube below the patient and a detector …
…interpretation of the conventional chest radiograph will be discussed here, using examples to illustrate many of the radiographic features. The traditional approach to radiographic assessment of diffuse lung disease …
…described to assist with the radiographic diagnosis of elbow fractures. These radiographic signs are reliable only if the elbow has been properly positioned for the radiographs; the importance of a true lateral …
… and 0.68, respectively . Radiographic findings of osteomyelitis include soft tissue swelling, osteopenia, cortical loss, bony destruction, and periosteal reaction . Radiographs may be unremarkable for the …
… six weeks. Radiographs are repeated four weeks after the injury and subsequently every two weeks until the fracture is clinically healed (ie, nontender over the fracture site with radiographic evidence of …