This report examines the "low-dose hypothesis" the idea that in some instances, low doses of a substance may have adverse effects that do not occur at higher doses.
The possibility of suffering adverse health effects as a result of exposure to radiation is a cause of concern and fear for many people. They may think that little is known about the health effects of exposure to radiation and that exposure to even low levels of radiation can be disastrous.
The possibility of suffering adverse health effects as a result of exposure to radiation is a cause for concern and indeed, for outright fear for many people. It is often thought that little is known about the health effects of radiation and that exposure to even low doses of radiation can be disastrous; yet neither of these beliefs is true. Misconceptions about radiation and health can cause unnecessary anxiety and may even prompt some people to make unwise decisions, such as forgoing beneficial medical procedures that involve radiation.
To the Editor: Daniel Machalaba alludes to a most dangerous trend, almost as an afterthought ("Local Ties," front page, Feb. 3). He refers to perchloroethylene as a "suspected carcinogen," and then goes on to point out that no one knows "yet" what it's adverse health effects might be. As Mr. Machalaba then points out, this lack of scientific data has not stopped the plaintiff's bar from declaring that "victims" of this contamination should be compensated for "toxic damage." "Perc" has been in use as a dry-cleaning solvent for over sixty years, and there is no evidence that it has ever caused cancer (or any other disease) in humans, at levels encoutered in the environment.