Thisd is a lame pitting. Bosda, it wpould do more for your credibility if you responded with reason and cites to support your assertions instead of throwing a hissy fit.
The newbie is a crank (cites from 1928 and 1909?), but he’s not necessarily wrong. Hormesis is an apparently real phenomenon that has been demonstrated to occur in some studies, but it is still highly controversial and not yet widely accepted by the medical community. The argument seems to be that low doses of ionizing radiation set off repair sytems in cells, thus acting as a sort of prophylactic against carcinogens and thus lowering one’s chances of cancer. Here’s a link to a Scientific Americanarticle that gives a brief overview that is comprehensible to non-scientists.
Note, however, that he didn’t offer to inhale equal amounts. I would be more willing to inhale 1 ug of caffeine than 1 ug of plutonium.
My take on this whole thing? If you imagine a dose-response graph for radiation, the model for the last 50 years or so has been LNT, but there is some evidence that at the low end, the curve flattens out or even angles up to the left. This data is hard to get, though, because it depends on sifting out very small effects in epidemiological studies, which is very error-prone. But if this effect is real, it has pretty large implications for our environmental policies. The best we can do now is to not worry excessively about very low exposures, because at most the effects are still small, and sit back and wait for more data.
Of course it’s a secondary source. But you’re overlooking that it quotes from a primary source. It’s also a secondary source that accords with the likes of Cancer Wars (Basic, 1995) by the historian of science Robert Proctor, which similarly (p158) dates the NCRP adoption of no-thresholds to the 1940s. (Proctor discusses the whole historical debate about dose-response in the period in detail, though he concentrates on chemical agents, his argument being that it’s that debate that precedes and prompts concern amongst radiologists.)
There’s also the fundamental logical problem that there’s no motive for the NRC to falsify their history. After all, anyone remotely aware of the issues knows that the dose-response curve has been controversial. Redating the origins of the original debate by 10 years (or more) in an official history would make no difference to their current position and hence would be pointless. It, however, makes all the difference to the criticism you’ve chosen to make of the column. I’ve pointed to an account that’s likely to be neutral on the detail in question and the best you can do is dismiss it because it disagrees with you.
On top of this, it’s not even as if Cecil’s account requires that teeth manufacturers be that aware of the ideas prevalent amongst scientists at the time. They may not have realised that the doses involved might count as “low”. If that were the case, then general concerns about the dangers of radioactivity may have prompted them to consult the AEC. Who then explained that the doses were low and hence probably harmless (by the criteria, right or wrong, prevailing at the time).
To cap it all, your accusation against the column on this issue isn’t even relevant to the point you seem to want to make. It ought to be quite possible to believe that low doses are actually harmless, or even beneficial, and realise that people didn’t necessarily believe that in the 1950s. If nothing else, you seem to realise that most people didn’t believe that in subsequent decades. Frankly, your hobbyhorse seems to be making you misread both Cecil’s column and the history of concerns about radiation.
And in fact, Bosda is pitting phybre in there right now, but has thoughtlessly not linked to it in this thread. Here it is for phybre and any other interested parties.
I’ve tried to find more information on line about the topic. I must admit that most of what I found is beyond me. I have discovered that it’s a topic that has been much discussed and debated. I’m linking some of the seemingly reputable sites with information so those of you who can understand it. Whatever else you may say about the OP, it doesn’t seem to be an entirely crackpot idea…
Well, amazingly not every bit of human information is available on the internet. I did find his NEJM cite, but for some reason I can’t post the url here. In fact it erases my enter post. Here’s there conclusion, though, “We conclude that the risk of breast cancer associated with radiation decreases sharply with increasing age at exposure and that even a small benefit to women of screening mammography would outweigh any possible risk of radiation-induced breast cancer”