title: Defining hormesis: comments on Calabrese and Baldwin (2002).
abstract: The definition of hormesis should not include non-scientific judgments as to beneficial or harmful effects. Evaluating the significance of hormesis is a separate issue that ultimately requires risk:risk comparisons, particularly since the evolutionary basis for hormesis appears to be Lamarkian rather than Darwinian. It is arguable whether 'hormesis' is the correct umbrella term for all low-dose exposure responses, in particular those at higher organization levels than single species, or whether it includes arousal responses.
authors.affiliation: EVS Environment Consultants, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. pchapman@attglobal.net
authors.forename: P M
authors.initials: PM
authors.lastname: Chapman
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology* / Q000528:radiation effects; D005075:Biological Evolution; D002869:Chromosome Aberrations / Q000187:drug effects / Q000528:radiation effects; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D006706:Homeostasis / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology* / Q000528:radiation effects; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000209:etiology; D019055:No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level; D011955:Receptors, Drug / Q000187:drug effects / Q000528:radiation effects; D018570:Risk Assessment
chemical_list: D011955:Receptors, Drug