Does anyone have thoughts on Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation?

From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Slavin
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:49 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced

I can think of a couple of examples where something toxic at a high level is not necessarily toxic at a low level. Vitamin C and A are both toxic at high levels, but who wants to argue that there is no safe level of exposure or no benefit. Certain metals, such as selenium, are toxic at high levels, but may be beneficial at low levels. Isn't the concept of a low dose challenge to the immune system behind the theory of vaccines. The linear no-threshold approach does not fit every situation. That is not to say that every chemical or bacteria is beneficial, but neither is it true that every chemical or microbe is dangerous an any level, no matter how low. I think this article misrepresents and overgeneralizes the work of Dr. Calabrese.

Tom Slavin

From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Alan Hall
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 4:22 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you - a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced

Et al,

Having been rather lll and in the hospital all last week, this is the first I've seen of this.

Pollution good for you?

What kind of idiotic, moronic nonsense are we up to now? Bringing to environmental regulatory science and public health clearly discredited principles that used to constitute homeopathic medicine?

As to politics, I am a medium conservative republican who didn't like either choice for President last time around and so chose the one I though was least awful.

Climate change is clearly real. What is not clear is how much anthropogenic activities contribute to it or if it was going to happen anyway (as it has many times in the past)..

A book on the econmoincs of climate change I reviewed for a journal a few years ago lead me to the conclusions that we can no longer afford all of us in terms of a sustainable environment, and that whether or not anthropogenic activites contribute significantly to climate change or not, what's wrong with having clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and sa afe and adequate food supply, etc., etc. etc.

Are there "safe" levels of pollutant exposure? Quite difficu;t to say. There are levels below which we are currently not able to detect adverse effects, but that doesn't mean with long-term and usually multiple complex mixture exposures that they clearly do not exist. Public health should whenever possible err on the side of being to conservative rather than the "let the breather beware" lassez-faire approach.

Maybe I'll cogitate on this some more later when I'm more up to par, but this approach to me seems sheer lunacy.

Alan

Alan H. Hall, M.D.

Medical Toxicologist

Clinical Asistant Professor

Colrado School of Public Health

University of Colorado-Denver

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:28 AM TILAK CHANDRA <0000058f112ac338-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**lists.princeton.edu> wrote:

Thank you Rob!

To verify the actual toxicity of various pollutants/particulates, we need to have the data on human clinical trials, not on other species. According to recent UNO report, 4.2 million deaths occur each year due to air pollution. Also, how we are going to measure low and high pollution.

This will be a good puzzle for Dr. Alan Hall, a toxicologist to interpret reported toxicological data published in peer review journals about some pollution is good for humans.

Tilak

---

From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> on behalf of ILPI Support <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:03:40 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Scientist says some pollution is good for you =E2=80" a disputed claim Trump's EPA has embraced

The title of this LA Times article speaks for itself.. Interesting to hear what "mainstream" toxicologists have to say on this.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-secret-science-20190219-story.html

Rob Toreki

======================================================

Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names

you know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com

esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free: (866) 326-5412

Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

---

Scanned by McAfee =AE Internet Security=E2=84=A2 and confirmed virus-free.

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas