Common sense requires that regulation to prevent the adverse effects of exposure to chemicals should when possible preserve the desirable or beneficial effects of exposure to the chemical. Excluding such effects by definition is contrary to good science and common sense.
1 US EPA . An examination of EPA risk assessment principles and practices. Staff Paper prepared for the US EPA by members of the Risk Assessment Task Force. Washington, DC: Office of the Science Advisor , 2004: 53-53.
2.
2 Rozman KK , Doull J . Dose and time as variables of toxicity . Toxicology2000; 144: 169-178 .
3.
3 Rozman KK , Doull J . The role of time as a quantifiable variable of toxicity and the experimental conditions when Haber's c x t product can be observed; implications for therapeutics . J Pharm Exp Ther2001; 296: 663-668 .
4.
4 Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LA . Defining hormesis . Hum Exp Toxicol2002; 21: 91-97 .
5.
5 Rozman KK , Doull J . Scientific foundations of hormesis, Part 2, maturation, strengths, limitations and epidemiology . Crit Rev Toxicol2003; 21: 451-462 .
6.
6 Rozman KK . Hormesis and risk assessment . Belle Newslett2005; 12: 19-21 .
7.
7 Calabrese EJ . Toxicological awakenings; the rebirth of hormesis as a central pillar of toxicology . Toxicol Appl Pharm2005; 204: 1-8 .
8.
8 Southam CM , Ehrlich J . Effects of western red-cedar heartwood on certain wood-decaying fungi in culture . Phytopathology1943; 33: 517-524 .
