Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Adi Paterson's avatar

LNT has no credibility in science, prospective or reflective. It predates modern microbiology and has been refuted by many independent methods.

Its only strengths are in INCUMBENCY and INSTIUTIONAL RIGIDITY.

Neither of these are virtues.

Typically, in politics, this type of hegemony needs to be overthrown as it is impervious to science, facts and reason.

In the meantime, public costs increase, socialization of fear persists.

NOT GOOD.

Expand full comment
David MacQuigg's avatar

I have tried to summarize both sides of the LNT debate in https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide#LNT_Controversy

The strongest arguments supporting LNT are arguments from authority. This statement from the NRDC is typical: "... numerous authoritative national and international bodies have convened committees of experts to examine the issue of LNT ... Again and again, these bodies have endorsed LNT as a reasonable approach to regulating exposures to low dose radiation. ... Opponents of the LNT model simply chose to disregard core research and findings in the field of radiation health physics."

When I try to push LNT supporters for supporting data, all they can come up with a plot from the European Code showing a linear relationship of lung cancer to radon.

https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide#LNT_and_radon,_Controversy_over_Figure_4

I complain that I cannot trace this data to its original source, and I get outrage. How can I dare question all these "scientists" with their numerous credentials and prestigious papers. As I scientist, I can dismiss arguments from authority, but our journalist readers take them very seriously.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts