|
||||||
|
While all links worked when entries were posted to the database, different publishers
have different policies about retaining articles and providing access to archived material.
Thus some of the links, particularly older ones, may no longer be functional.
For links no longer working, you may be able to gain paid access to text via the publisher's site.
The Rubber Duckies: Rejecting the good news.
Cellphones can cause cancer and other medical problems, one whack of studies says. Cellphones are safe, says another batch. Which is it? Financial Post. Opinion, 19 June 2010.
Toxicology smackdown: The Paracelsian paradigm versus hormesis.
Everything we consume can be poisonous if we take it in large enough amounts, and conversely even the most poisonous of things are benign if taken in small enough dosages. CBC Canada. Opinion, 18 May 2010.
Fowl surprise! Methylmercury improves hatching rate.
A pinch of methylmercury is just ducky for mallard reproduction, according to a new federal study. The findings are counterintuitive, since methylmercury is ordinarily a potent neurotoxic pollutant. Science News. 6 March 2010.
Irrational fears give nuclear power a bad name, says Oxford scientist.
The health dangers from nuclear radiation been oversold, stopping governments from fully exploiting nuclear power as a weapon against climate change, argues a professor of physics at Oxford University. London Guardian, United Kingdom. 11 January 2010.
Egyptian eyeliner may have warded off disease.
Egyptians believed that lead-based cosmetics protected against eye diseases. Now, new research suggests that they may have been on to something. Science. 9 January 2010.
Beyond biological warfare.
In the past 15 years, researchers have become convinced that natural antibiotics may be less weapons for competition than tools of communication, or even essential cogs in their producers' own metabolism. This discovery could lead to new ways to counter antibiotic resistance. Science. 29 June 2009.
When a little poison is good for you.
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Like many aphorisms it contains more than a grain of truth. It describes the theory of hormesis - a process whereby organisms exposed to low levels of stress or toxins become more resistant to tougher challenges. New Scientist. Opinion, 9 August 2008.
Study shows everyday items expose all of us to pollutants.
Thirteen volunteers from across the state agreed to be tested for 71 toxic chemicals--coming from five chemical groups-- found in common products to get a snapshot of just how polluted we might all be. The answer is highly. Augusta Kennebec Journal, Maine. 12 June 2007.
Take time to scout out radon levels.
Rhe U.S. government lists nearly 250 known or "reasonably anticipated" carcinogens. Grand Rapids Press, Michigan. 29 April 2007.
Counterintuitive toxicity.
For decades, researchers largely assumed that a poison's effects increase as the dose rises and diminish as it falls. Now scientists are documenting results that violate that dogma. Science News. 20 January 2007.
Drug model may be wrong for low doses.
A new study of National Cancer Institute data suggests that the traditional way to evaluate drug tests is wrong for very low doses. United Press International. 27 December 2006.
Hormesis is a flawed theory.
Low doses can have impacts that can't be predicted from high dose experiments. But this has exactly the opposite policy implications than those promoting hormesis would argue. Traditional high dose testing will miss many low dose adverse effects. OurStolenFuture.org. Opinion, 12 October 2006.
Hormesis gets massive data support.
Proponents of hormesis argue that low doses can have the opposite effect of high doses. If true it could overturn scores of environmental regulations. Environmental Science & Technology. 6 October 2006.
Chernobyl's 'nuclear nightmares.'
According to figures from the Chernobyl Forum, deaths directly attributable to radiation from Chernobyl currently stand at 56 - less than the weekly death toll on Britain's roads. BBC. 14 July 2006.
Exposure to extremely low levels of DES in the womb causes mice to become grotesquely obese in adulthood.
Higher levels cause weight loss. The soy phytoestrogen genistein has a similar effect. 4 November 2005. More...
Thousands of studies conducted by thousands of scientists from around the world have been published in the last decade about endocrine disruption.
They confirm that some contaminants used in commmon products can disrupt hormone signaling and alter gene expression, thereby altering development. Some of the most important studies are summarized here. 24 July 2005. More...
Too hot to handle.
A National Academy of Sciences report released today finds that the risks of low-dose radiation rise with the dose, and there is no safe level of radiation. That conclusion has grown stronger over the past 15 years, says the NAS committee, dismissing the hypothesis that tiny amounts of radiation are harmless or beneficial. Science. 30 June 2005.
Scientists from government, academic and independent laboratories challenge proposals that 'hormesis' be used to justify weakening public health standards.
This dose-response pattern involves low- dose stimulation in contrast to high-dose inhibition. A peer-reviewed commentary in the scientific journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences concludes that it is irresponsible for proponents of hormesis to portray chemicals with numerous adverse effects as having "benefits" from low-dose stimulation while ignoring their hazards. 25 June 2005. More...
I am polluted.
You are exposed to hundreds of chemicals every day, so it's not surprising that they get inside you. A reporter submits himself to the science of body burden measurements. Toronto Globe and Mail, Ontario. 5 March 2005.
Is there a tonic in the toxin?
For years, Edward Calabrese has quietly worked at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst to advance the scientific theory known as "hormesis" --the idea that exposures to chemicals or radiation at low doses can have the opposite effect than at high doses. US News & World Report. 10 October 2004.
A chemical Kyoto.
Environmentalists, joined by a growing body of regulators and the global insect pest community, are raising the alarm that a long list of chemicals are criminals on the loose, moving unnoticed from country to country, able to harm millions and kill thousands. In their minds, there's no better way to nab the suspect than with more environmental regulations. Wall Street Journal. Opinion, 23 September 2004.
Nuclear power is fine - radiation is good for you.
Far from safeguarding our health, current safety standards will almost certainly increase the incidence of cancer. London Daily Telegraph, United Kingdom. Opinion, 8 August 2004.
PBDEs:A Story of Conversion from Skeptic to Crusader.
This is the story of my evolution from a scientific skeptic to a strong supporter for a specific "environmental" cause-the phasing out of the chemical class called PBDEs in California due to their negative impacts upon human development. San Francisco Medicine. Opinion, 15 April 2004.
Low-dose effects.
The concept that small amounts of a toxic chemical may be good for health is the center of a controversy in the field of toxicology. This debate has implications for the health of people and wildlife, the cost of pollution controls and cleanup, and the regulation of chemicals. Chemical & Engineering News. 5 April 2004.
A little poison, a big help?
government regulators long have presumed that isn't true when it comes to carcinogens such as certain pesticides. If they're harmful to people in large doses, they reason, they can't be beneficial in small ones. Now, a re-emerging but still marginal theory posits that regulators are wrong, calling into question the models the government uses to predict how much of a toxin is bad for you and - potentially - the regulations themselves. Baltimore Sun, Maryland. 15 March 2004.
Tiny bits of toxins do affect people
Tiny doses of toxins and radiation in the environment, once ignored as insignificant, affect people's health in good and bad ways, scientists are finding. Charlotte Observer, North Carolina. 27 February 2004.
Redrawing the dose response curve [PDF].
The proposal that low doses can have the opposite effect of high doses seems to be gaining respectability. This winter the US National Academy of Sciences is hosting a meeting to review and evaluate the science of hormesis. Environmental Science & Technology. 26 February 2004.
Scientists revisit idea that a little poison could be beneficial
After years on the ash heap of science, "hormesis" is making a comeback. But lower doses can produce more-dangerous effects than higher ones, also. All of which suggests that the old mantra about the dose making the poison is due for an overhaul. Wall Street Journal. 19 December 2003.
Hormesis: A healthful dab of radiation?
Research that could shed light on possible "radiation hormesis," much of it funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is well under way. Although these studies may not soon alter regulators' assumption that any dose of radiation is harmful, the findings about low-dose effects may be provocative. Science. 17 October 2003.
Hormesis: Sipping from a poisoned chalice
People have believed since antiquity that tiny doses of toxicants can be healthful. Now hormesis, a concept once discredited in scientific circles, is making a surprising comeback. But others contend that such conclusions reach far beyond the science. Moreover, a recent wave of studies has found that some hormonelike toxicants known as endocrine disrupters may be more harmful at small doses than they are at larger ones. Science. 17 October 2003.
|
||||||
![[delete]](/images/x.gif)