I can, of course, spell “structured”.
You are not alone. :rolleyes: 
“A friend of mine had a frontal lobotomy…”
Phybre is no ordinary newbie. It’s like exposure to radiation has changed him somehow…given him cites and tentacles…I know nothing of this ‘science’ that is being discussed, other than it is all some plot to upset the natural balance our bodily humors. We should consult with an expert in the art of science, perhaps a ‘scientologist’ or whatever they are called.
It is heartening, though, to see one lone dude just tearing into a argument like that. No clue if he is right or wrong, but he is whipping out cites like a man possessed.
Hell, I tried to get into the debate, I can’t even understand the explanations well enough to participate.
But it’s an appropriate reference. The best reference for Newtonian physics is from 1687 — Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Very well.
I suspend my objections, at least until the heavy hitters get done working him over–I mean, until the heavy hitters get done working his idea over.
But I’ll pass on the whole “radiation exposure” thing, in any case.
:eek:
Dilly indeed. Having read the article in Scientific American on hormesis, I have to give phybre some credit. His arguement has traction and he is an incredible debater. If only all the new people were as intelligent.
[Wayne] WE’RE NOT WORTHY WE’RE NOT WORTHY [/Wayne]
Oh, Og No, we’d all be out of a job 
I would have called this a classy move, but you just had to get one last jab in, didn’t you?
What jab?
Have you looked at that thread?
It isn’t just the idea that’s getting picked apart.
Plate of shrimp.
Lame pitting. Very lame pitting.
Could you not have just finished the discussion in the original thread? He may be a crank on this particular subject, he may even be a ‘dilly’, but he’s trying to have an honest debate. But instead, because you couldn’t attack him personally in that thread, you start another one up here to have a snigger about the new kid with the gang.
I don’t know too much about the science involved, and can’t be bother to find out either. But from a cursory glance through the thread it looks like Bosda was getting walked all over. Makes this pitting all the lamer.
What Futile Gesture said. I may not know much about radiation and the science involved, but I’ve been around here long enough to know when somebody’s losing a debate.
Well, I can tell you that the science Phybre is quoting is a load of wank–there may be something to hormesis, but it’s far from conclusive and Phybre’s cites (the few I’ve managed to find) are largely irrelevant to the points he’s making. However, the initial data are promising and more investigation is definitely warranted. Interesting poster, though, and definitely more intelligent than poor Bosda.
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like many of the proponents of hormesis are simply using a backdoor approach to getting homeopathy into the discourse. There’s probably a little bit of something to the idea that low-level stressors can beneficially modulate homeostasis (e.g. the increasing rate of allergy and the possible corrolaries to increasing environmental sterility), but it’s something I’d be highly cautious about playing around with.
I’m inclined to agree with the majority here Bosda. I read the original thread (heck, I even understooded some of it!), and you were getting your butt handed to you. Lame pitting.
phybre could turn into a hell of a poster. I hope he/she signs up.
Indeed, but only time will tell. I guess then, the open question is: Will the dilly dally?
Hey, does anyone else think they’ve heard a variation of this argument before, and in the same style?
If so, maybe he took a debating class between then and now.
Really different style and really different argument. Phybre is making a coherant argument that he’s supporting with citations, that low levels of radiation probably aren’t harmful, and could even be beneficial.
Boyscout11 alledged, without ever providing evidence, that uranium tipped weapons were inevitably fatal due to radiation and uranium “getting in your bloodstream”.
I don’t know much about nuclear physics or radiation, so I don’t know if Phybre’s argument is good or bad, but at least it’s coherant and he’s supporting it.
My read of the literature is that hormesis is fairly fringe, though not necessarily wrong in certain circumstances. I’m not sure why we need to consider nuclear physics here, beyond the most salient qualities of certain radionuclides, like their half-life, what they emit, how energetic is that emission, and so forth; the sorts of things you look up in a table without needing to know so much about pions and gluons. If we need to worry about mechanistic issues, I would think biochemistry would be the primary concern; it’s ionizing radiation, after all. Given that, phybre’s constant harping on it makes me a little suspicious.
Be that as it may: Sure, some compounds and other stimuli may have J- or U-shaped dose-response curves. Others may not. A certain EJ Calabrese of UMass Amherst seems to feel that the concept will revolutionize toxicology, but I’m highly skeptical. I’ve dose-responsed lots of compounds, and I’ve never seen any evidence that typical linear or sigmoidal models aren’t perfectly valid. Then again, I’ve never tried to look at dosing in picomolar ranges or at chronic exposure so prolonged and in such a large number that, say, decrease in rates of tumorigenesis would be reduced enough to show up above statistical noise. This hormesis stuff looks fiendishily difficult to test rigorously, if you ask me, and if that’s the crux of phybre’s objections to Cecil’s column, I’m not sure he has much of a case. Juse because he can cite things doesn’t me those citations are any good, and I’m not convinced many, if any, of them are. To me, an argument that follows logically from crap is, in the end, still crap. The jury’s still way out on the general relevance of hormesis, if you ask me.