This paper introduces an issue of the BELLE Newsletter that is designed to reflect on the role of BELLE in affecting how the concept of hormesis is perceived and accepted by the biomedical and toxicological communities. A brief overview of how BELLE was created is provided.
Hoffmann GRA perspective on the scientific, philosophical, and policy dimensions of hormesis . Dose-Response2009, 7: 1-51.
5.
Scott BRIt’s time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm - one that acknowledges hormesis. Dose Response2008; 6: 333-351.
6.
Scott BRLow-dose radiation-induced protective process and implications for risk assessment, cancer prevention, and cancer therapy. Dose Response2007; 5: 131-149.
7.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LAHormesis: from marginalization to mainstream - a case for hormesis as the default dose-response model in risk assessment . Toxicol Appl Pharmacol2004; 197: 125-136.
8.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LAToxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature2003; 421: 691-692.
9.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LAHormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. TiPS2001; 22: 285-291.
10.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LA, Holland CDHormesis: a highly generalizable and reproducible phenomenon with important implications for risk assessment. Risk Analysis1999; 19: 261-281.
11.
Calabrese EJThe road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch Toxicol2009; 83: 203-225.
12.
Calabrese EJGetting the dose-response wrong: why hormesis became marginalized and the threshold model accepted. Arch Toxicol2009; 83: 227-247.
13.
Calabrese EJHistorical blunders: how toxicology got the dose-response relationship half right. Cell Mol Biol2005; 51: 643-654.
