Here we go again with the manufactuversy over low level radiation hormesis.
Hormesis is the proposed general beneficial effect of low level radiation.
This concept has been around for decades and was scrutinized by the National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report of 2006.
There is no convincing evidence of this phenomenon.
Yet, here is a Dr. Calabrese, who has done work on chemical hormesis "discovering" that radiation might have hormetic effects.
In the first few minutes he describes homeopathic medicine (the pseudo-science that very dilute solutions have medical efficacy) with linear no threshold doses of toxic substances.
In medical efficacy tests, we are testing a drug for a predicted (or unpredicted) medical effect compared with a placebo. The tests are very well controlled and the statistics can be quite good. We need both a positive medical effect and the absence of adverse effects.
In toxicology, there is no good effect. You are testing how much of a toxic substance a person has been dosed with, versus an observed effect. Since researchers are not going to intentionally expose people to toxic substances, the researchers have to employ the best field research they can. The statistics are not good, because there is a lot of uncertainty in the data. Typically, we can easily observe the effects of high doses, but the observed effect trails down as the doses get lower. There isn't enough statistical power to ever observe a teenie-weenie effect at a very low dose.
Most of the rest of the interview concerns the claim that an early radiation biologist may have lied about some early data. No physical evidence is presented to support this claim. But even if true, it would be irrelevant considering how far the science of radiation biology has advanced in the intervening decades. It's not like we would shut down the food industry if we learned Pasteur lied about some data.
And of course, he offers no direct physical evidence of radiation hormesis.
He does describe what's called adaptive response which is described in the first link on page 50. But those types of responses are not generalized, just specific to unique circumstances, and disappear at low doses. We've known about this for decades.
Did you count how many times he mentioned the BEIR VII report?
Notice that the YouTube video poster is associated with LaRouch PAC, which has an anti-government regulation ideology. I trust you see the connection...if people can be convinced hormesis is true, maybe regulations can be relaxed and/or delayed.
As long as the evidence is invisible...hormesis is invisible.