Email   Print

Small can be healthy

Toxins like radon and even DDT may have beneficial effects at very low doses.

Ursula Sautter | May 2008 issue

A glass of red wine after dinner a couple of times a week can help prevent heart disease; a nightly magnum of the stuff will corrode your liver. This is pretty much accepted wisdom. But what isn’t yet widely understood is that in very small doses, an array of substances considered toxic could potentially be good for you.

Take cadmium. This soft, blueish-white heavy metal, frequently used in batteries, is a known carcinogen. But studies on rodents suggest that in small doses, it can reduce cancer rates. Or consider mercury, a neurotoxin in fluorescent bulbs and thermometers; in tiny amounts, it has an antioxidant effect and can protect against cell damage.

The theory behind these phenomena is hormesis, a term derived from the Greek word hormo, “to excite.” The mechanism behind it is simple: A small dose of a toxin excites a stress reaction in the body, causing it to bolster its defences against the invader. This idea has been around since at least the 16th century, when Renaissance physician Paracelsus observed, “It’s the dose that makes the poison.”

In the 18th century, the German pioneer of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, had the same notion. He believed remedies for diseases could be created by ingesting minute amounts of substances that cause symptoms of the disease.

It may not be surprising that some potentially harmful natural substances may have healthy effects at low doses. After all, the same principle underlies vaccinations, in which a tiny dose of, say, polio is administered so the immune system can build up resistance to it.

What’s more surprising is that the same may be true of man-made chemicals like dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and dioxins. These toxic substances can cause serious environmental and health problems, but research suggests that in small doses they can have positive effects. Hormesis “could be a major revolution across broad reaches of the biomedical world,” says toxicologist Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who found thousands of instances of the phenomenon in the scientific literature. “It would also be very important for drug discovery.” Here’s a look at some of the bad stuff that, in tiny amounts, might be good for you.

Radiation

The conventional view is that the higher the dosage of radiation, the greater the risk of cancer. Yet evidence is mounting that shows exposure to low-dose radiation can be a boon. For example, research into the long-term effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 has found no indication that the attacks caused genetic damage. In fact, the frequency of leukemia among survivors exposed to relatively low-dose radiation was abnormally low.

A similar effect is seen in less dramatic cases of exposure. Reviewing scientific literature, Myron Pollycove, professor emeritus of laboratory medicine and radiology at the University of California at San Francisco, concluded in a 2007 article in the U.S. medical journal Dose-Response that “[p]opulations living in high background radiation areas and nuclear workers with increased radiation exposure show lower mortality and decreased cancer mortality than the corresponding populations living in low background radiation areas and nuclear workers without increased radiation exposure. … Both studies of cancer in animals and clinical trials of patients with cancer also show, with high statistical confidence, the beneficial effects of low-dose radiation.”

The impact of exposure to radon is a case in point. An odourless, tasteless and invisible radioactive gas produced from the natural breakdown of uranium in water, soil and rock, it’s often detected in building materials and causes thousands of lung cancer deaths per year. Yet several scientific studies suggest low levels of the element can decrease mortality from this type of cancer too. In 1993, researchers from Osaka found that residents of Misasa, Japan, where radon is plentiful, develop lung cancer less often than those in surrounding suburbs. A 1995 study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh also showed a correlation between higher radon levels and decreasing mortality rates from lung cancer.

Reviewing these and other papers, scientists at the Institute for Nuclear Science and Techniques in Hanoi, Vietnam, concluded in the 2006 International Journal of Low Radiation that “radon has been proven to decrease the lung cancer mortality rate at the low level.”

The secret behind the possible beneficial effects of low-level ionizing radiation—and other kinds of hormesis—appears to be cellular stress adaptation. Bombarded by radioactive substances, cells muster their defences to fend off damage.


1 2 NEXT >>
view as a single page


Tools: Discuss | Email | Print | RSS | Weekly Newsletter
Save/Share:
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon
  • Blue Dot
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
Comments (2)

Where to begin... cute , edgy, convoluted, distorted, lacking thorough consideration:

Clarification:

It is true that homeopathy uses infintesimally small doses of toxic substances for healing, however these are devoid of a single molecule of the original substance and work via an energetic imprint of that substance on water molecules.Thus they lack toxicity. This is not the case with non homeopathic doses of toxic chemicals which unlike their homeopathic cousins can build up over time after serial environmental exposure and can interact with and be poteniated in combination with other chemical exposures. ( The synergistic effect of two different chemicals can increase their toxicity 100 fold or more)

The lab and the real world have vast differences. In the lab there is not time to notice or measure the long term impact of bioaccumulation. In the real world we are not limited to clinically controlled doses of toxins such as DDT. Mercury. They come at us silently and insidiously.

The average person in the USA tested for their body burden of chemicals by the EPA was found to have bioaccumulated over 300 industrial chemicals already...

These chemicals are just sitting there,at best doing no good, at worst ticking like a time bomb waiting for the right threshold to be reached or the wrong catalyst to come along.

They are not nutrients, they do not contribute to the body's energy production or tissue production that is why they are termed by the EPA : BODY BURDEN

For thousands of years Ayurveda has called this entire class of non nutrient , non eliminated substances AMA. AMA is considered the immediate cause of all disease processes and is known to go through six stages of development ... silent accumulation, initial aggravation (in the digestive system) overflow, spreading, relocation, degeneration.

Ama overwhelms the body, clouds the senses, disturbs the mind, confuses judgment... none of which can be tested in the lab.

To think that anyone with so little foresight ( so common in Allopathy) would even think about giving animals or people DDT , Dioxin etc. theraputically while not surprising given our level of educated ignorance but it is frightening to see this "logic" promoted in an international supposedly eco-friendly magazine.

posted by k7gregg on 5/14/2008 8:48 am

Are there references for this article? If so, could you please post them? I would like to share this information with some friends, but they are skeptical of such information unless it is scientifically documented.

Thanks for your kind assistance.

Whizum

posted by whizum on 5/13/2008 2:01 pm

Post a comment

You must be a registered user to comment. If you are already registered Click here to login or Click here for our fast, free registration.