I've recently read some papers on Hormesis (the stimulatory effect of low doses of substances toxic at high doses). The papers are all published in respected peer-reviewed journals, here, here, and here for example, but they're pretty much all by one person, Edward Calabrese. I'm struggling to make sense of an issue which is clearly an acceptable enough possibility to appear in peer-reviewed journals, but which seems to have garnered absolutely no further interest beyond the one man. I naturally presumed that the concept had been dismissed by some later study, but I cannot seem to track such a study down.

To be clear, I'm not interested in policy, as the use of linear no threshold models vs Hormetic models for public policy is so highly politicized a topic with unscientific approaches on both sides (the vested interests of polluting industry vs an easily panicked population urging it's legislators). I'm just looking to fill the gap in my reading of the science. Papers showing demonstrable low dose responses which match a LNT model would be good, papers showing contrary results to Calabrese's for the same toxins would be ideal.

  • $\begingroup$ Hormesis Defined Nesbitts paradox resolved? Nicotine physiological response changes with dosage I think in general it's accepted that decreasing pollutant concentration is better than increasing it. $\endgroup$ – Tom V. Apr 25 '18 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.