Funding trends in hormetic research.

The topic of hormesis research funding has been a focus of deliberation within the scientific community for several decades. A common assumption/belief is that most hormesis research is funded by the private sector. With this assumption may emerge questions revolving around potential bias of such research. To provide some clarification to this issue, all hormesis research articles were obtained through online databases for 5-year increments starting with 1995 and ending with 2015 and were subsequently categorized by their funding source. A total of 710 articles were found for those years and 383 of those reported information on funding sources. Reporting funding is not required by law and until more recently was not encouraged or required by funders, research institutions, and/or scientific publishers. The analysis revealed that the assumption that the majority of hormesis research has been privately funded was not supported, with the public sector (i.e. federal and state governmental agencies) exclusively contributing to 78% of the reported research funding. Going forward, funding transparency for scientific research as a whole is essential within the scientific community as it may affect how research may be perceived, accepted, and applied.

Regulatory consideration in radiation protection.

A regulatory scheme is suggested that identifies regions labeled "unacceptable" and "safe" as the upper and lower bounds and "operational" region is identified as the continuum between the two extremes. These regions are associated with levels of annual risk of cancer death for a given level of lifetime exposure between 100 mrem/yr and 1 mrem/yr, upper and lower bounds, respectively. Concern is expressed with establishing public health standards at ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) levels, which result in lower standards for reference, and views are presented on several issues of interest in regulations for protection of the public from radioactivity in drinking water. Based on the regulatory scheme suggested, the author concludes that existing standards for drinking water appear to be lower than necessary.