Thank you so much! I am humbled that you took the time.
The idea of people thinking that low level radiation is good for you (hormesis) is pretty much new to me. However, the articles you linked do not convince me of your argument - please tell me where I am wrong:
1. The Wiki article: "Consensus reports by the United
States National Research Council and the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR) have upheld that insufficient human
data on radiation hormesis exists to supplant the Linear
no-threshold model (LNT). Therefore, the LNT continues to
be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for
human radiation exposure."
The Wiki does cite some papers purporting to show hormesis, but explains what their problems may be.
But to be fair, it does say there are studies underway to investigate whether there is a safe lower threshold of radiation exposure. And there have apparently been some cases of hormesis on non-human tissue in the laboratory.
2. The second link is only an abstract and I could not
figure out how to get the full text. But what I read from
the abstract is that this man, who works for GE, thinks the
public needs more information about radiation and that
small amounts are not as bad as big amounts. Nothing about
small amounts being GOOD for you. Just that diagnostic
tools might not HARM you.
3. The third link is an article from the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons, and is titled as a review
of recent evidence. I couldn't get the tables to display,
but otherwise the entire article is there. His main supporting
evidence of hormesis is his own papers about radon
exposure, which are much older than anything cited in the
4. The last link is a 2001 position paper by the American Nuclear Society, saying that there is "insufficient evidence to support the use of the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis (LNTH) in the health effects of low level radiation", and more research needs to be done. Nothing about it being GOOD for you that I see.
Again, I'm no expert, I just read.
I'm not going to provide the link to the Coulter article supporting hormesis, because it would make me feel dirty. But when you find it, you will also find refutations from many people much more qualified than me.
Fascinating topic! Thank you, RetiredGypsy.