As a physicist and full professor in medical imaging I can ensure you somewhat authoritatively: You can simply disregard every clown on the internet who dismisses linear no threshold out of hand. This is fairly sure sign that this person relies on pseudoscientific sources, also promoted by certain industries and shills which generally lobby against anti-pollution laws and sadly adopted by some pro-nuclear lobbyists.…
LNT is the only data we have but that doesn't make it right. All the data points for figuring radiation risk are based on high level exposures, LNT is the best fit line that passes through 0,0. The problem is that this makes the assumption that the line is straight. The problem with this is we have many data points for lower level exposure that seem to almost all lie well below the line, but none have the statistical…
Re: Nuclear power is too safe
#201There are many possible reasons why LNT may not be exactly right, but misrepresenting it as anything else than the current best assumption is dishonest in my opinion. I am not aware of hard evidence contradicting it. Overall, evidence is consistent with linear risk at low doses and this is also consistent with plausible mechanisms. Even with LNT we do not expect "cancer clusters" in regions higher background radiation. We would expect a small excess number of cancers on top a huge amount of cancer we have anyway. This is statistically difficult to detect and there many other possible confounders. Regarding the original article, terminology such as "LNT worshipping" is a clear sign that sources are pseudoscientific.