Thank-you for a pragmatic charge against the pseudo orthodoxy of LNT. It is based on logic so sound that it makes my head spin wondering why it has taken so long to come to our senses. I agree with your recommendations
"The central issue with LNT is its foundational premise: which is radiation damage cannot be repaired." Even more important is the misconception that damage is caused by a particle interacting with DNA. Most of the damage to DNA is caused by reactive oxygen species, which are buffered in the case of low-dose-rate radiation. This lie is intended to mask the real risk of high-dose-rate radiation by mixing everything up.
This piece is an especially valuable commentary on an important and timely topic. I hope it gets the distribution to the right readers that it deserves.
Aside from the specific topic of radiation harm models, I was also intrigued by general comments about the areas where AI might actually be useful.
"The survey of "Current Scientific Evidence" in the INL report could have been done far better by AI. I doubt if AI would have so carefully avoided the exposures that confirm that LNT's denial of our DNA repair ability leads to many order of magnitude errors for the sort of dose rate profiles incurred in a nuclear power plant release."
AI should become an important and perhaps required tool for those tasked with reviewing "survey" type studies. Too many of those that are used as policy justifications take similar selective liberties as the ones that you describe for INWORKS. The authors, often with an end in mind, pick and choose which studies they use.
Within chosen sources, they emphasize certain sections while rejecting others.
AI models could be readily trained to avoid such slanting.
They can also be easily programmed to include such slanting.
At least ChatGPT can be coached. A friend of mine got the program to say nasty things about LNT and sort of support SNT by continually asking searching questions about LNT and pointing the program towards SNT. Here's a small part of the conversation
Coach:
Could "SNT" Mean Sigmoid No-Threshold?
Program:
Yes, "Sigmoid No-Threshold" (SNT) could be a valid interpretation. A sigmoidal (S-shaped) dose-response curve is often seen in biological systems and could describe radiation effects better than LNT. A sigmoidal SNT model would predict:
Negligible or no harm at very low doses (flattened region at the bottom). Gradual increase in risk as dose rises. Steep rise after exceeding the body’s repair capacity. A plateau at very high doses (where radiation becomes overwhelmingly damaging). This would better match real-world biological data where:
Low-dose exposures show no measurable harm. The body's repair mechanisms handle moderate levels of DNA damage. Only high doses overwhelm repair capacity, leading to clear risks. Would you like to see a plotted version of these potential SNT curves?
To determine the maximum chronic daily dose rate that showed no increased cancer risk, we need to look at the dose accumulation pattern of the radium dial painters.
Key Findings from Radium Dial Painter Studies:
Bone Absorbed Dose with No Increased Cancer: The reanalysis of the dial painters (Rowland et al., 1993) x found no increase in bone sarcomas in individuals who absorbed up to 1,000 rad (10 Gy) over their working lifetime. Some individuals with cumulative doses up to 2,500 rad (25 Gy) also showed no statistically significant increase in cancer outside of bone sarcomas. Exposure Duration and Daily Dose Rate: Dial painters typically worked 5 days a week for 5–10 years, with internal deposition of radium leading to chronic alpha irradiation of bone. A 1,000 rad (10 Gy) cumulative dose over 10 years corresponds to an annual dose of 100 rad (1 Gy/year). This translates to about 0.27 rad/day (2.7 mGy/day) as an average daily dose rate.
And on and on. By askign the program a different series of questions, you could get it to defend LNT.
I was granted temporary access to the SARI discussion group to make the argument for replacing LNT with SNT. That argument was rejected on the grounds that SNT claims that hormetian effects can be neglected in the dose rate profiles incurred in a NNP release at least for regulatory purposes. As far as I can tell, I failed to persuade any member of SARI to support SNT before my temporary access lapsed.
The discussion threads get pretty complicated, given some of the expertise and experience (and professional opinions). Don't let that put you off! I've learned LOTS from following the threads. The SNT/LNT/hormesis thread is just tip of the story. I can barely grasp some of the nuances discussed on certain topics sometimes! (...and I was a Certified Health Physicist for 42 years.)
I'm not familiar with "my temporary access lapsed.". Here's what transpired in 2023:
After reviewing all the responses, I have decided to welcome Jack Devanney to sari-list as a member. He meets the qualifications to be invited as a member. He can leave sari-list when he wants. Thanks for all your feedbacks.
With best regards,
Mohan
SARI came first and x-LNT.org spun off from that to focus on JUST LNT.
Mohan Doss manages the gmail lists. Should I email him to correct the apparent misunderstanding/problem?
There is no misunderstanding. I asked Mohan if I could get access to the group since there was some discussion among SARI about SNT on the forum that I thought needed clarification. Mohan graciously said OK, but at least in my mind it was a 'special purpose membership". For one thing. I do not agree with SARI's attempt to make hormesis the law of the land. I am sharply critical of their attempt to replace LNT with a model they cant even properly define. (Show me the computer program that can convert any dose rate profile into a prediction of cancer incidence.) I pushed SNT as hard as I could for a few months at SARI to no avail. I had my say and it was time to go.
Mohan is a blind supporter of hormesis and getting rid of LNT. In fact, he took the initiative to set up the X-LNT org. It hasn't had much traction.
Mohan and many SARIans have had many discussions over the years about hormesis. For MY part, I've repeatedly suggested that Mohan temper his position on the subject with something that is more palatable and understandable than something he seems to think is black/white only.
He'll likely never change much, but the SARI group is FULL of highly qualified folks that I disagree with on certain issues. I'm more of a pragmatist/realist myself and figure that if I can't fully understand it, the public will NEVER buy it.
The profession is sometimes its own worst enemy. They don't seem to realize that perfect is the enemy of good enough. Radiophobia and its consequences results.
Please reconsider your decision to not participate in SARI. Even if you don't wish to actively engage, you can glean a LOT from just scanning some of the discussion threads (I have). I like to follow some of your writings! The world of SARI would be better with you around. (BTW, the website SHOWS you as a member, but if your email (gmail) is goofed up, we can fix that.)
In order to replace LNT we must have a well-defined replacement,
where well-defined means complies with the computer program rule.
Hand waving about hormesis won't cut it. Tossing the word "threshold" around without saying exactly what teh word means nor just where that threshold is, nor what [repair] period it applies to, nor saying what happens if the threshold i s exceeded just plays into the hands of the LNT defenders.
The anti_LNT forces must coalesce around a single well defined harm model or we will be stuck in LNT quicksand forever. SNT is a well-defined model that does a surprisingly good job of replicating the data despite its simplicity. SNT does not allow the LNT defenders the very effective prove-there-is-a-threshold argument. SNT desperately needs people with medical credentials to get behind it. I had hoped I could convince SARI to do that. Doss gave me the opportunity and it went nowhere.
I'm an engineer, not a scientist. I'm interested in getting things done, not endless discussions aimed at showing how smart I think I am. I see no point in re-engaging with SARI. They are a dead end.
Good stuff as always, Jack. One thing you mentioned: "The central issue with LNT is its foundational premise: which is radiation damage cannot be repaired."
Exactly. So may I suggest that you frame SNT around the fact of repair, because it's a dose-repair profile, and not just a dose-rate profile. Repair is how and why you can bend the LNT line into an S.
Repair is the key concept that has to be driven home to kill LNT. Because of LNT, many people believe there is no repair -- even though repair a key concept in nuclear medicine, which is almost universally accepted by the public. (Go figure.)
Repair that counteracts damage is the central concept of SNT -- if the repair rate exceeds the damage rate, a person will be fine.
So I think you need to make this a central part of your SNT pitch.
Repair has been a central part of the SNT pitch from the start. Who was the first to call LNT the no repair model? SNT is perhaps the simplest model that recognizes repair. Why else divide a dose rate profile into repair periods? The argument is most clearly enunciated in the HWCMNCA book which spends a chapter on DNA damage and repair before even discussing radiation harm models.
All true, but TBH, in the numerous times I've encountered SNT, or mentions of it, I never absorbed the fact that it's a repair model until I read the two pdfs you sent me, and finally had the realization.
Granted, I'm a writer and not a scientist, but maybe that makes me a good litmus test. And for all the familiarity I've had with this general subject of nuclear power, radiation, etc. these last 12 years, it didn't dawn on me that SNT is a repair model until I dug into the pdfs and had the realization.
Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but then, neither has the public. So as some unsolicited advice from one writer to another, maybe you could pitch it / frame it / title it as the SNT Model of Radiation Repair, and keep pounding on that key concept, loudly and often, using the word "repair" in every mention, and in the title of every paper, until it finally punches through society's nuclear fear. Because as soon as the public realizes that repair is possible, LNT will fall apart.
(The Flop book website can be very slow. Give it time.)
The idea behind SNT is stupid simple: divide the dose rate profile into repair periods, and treat each repair period separately.
But it takes two mental breakthroughs.
1) Nobody gets "a dose". We get a dose rate profile. This should be obvious but LNT has so deeply infected the radiation discussion, that for the fully indoctrinated it takes an epiphany. The easiest people to explain SNT to are blue collar guys and high school kids. An open minded writer is far more likely to get it , then a PhD who has spent his whole career thinking about "the dose".
2) Damage is not harm. Duh! Almost all DNA damage is repaired. It's the residue, actually the misrepaired residue that can cause cancer. But if there is no repair, then damage is equivalent to harm. No repair is LNT's foundational premise. Once again LNT has become so deeply embedded, that the damage is harm has become almost an axiom. It takes mental effort to separate the two.
On reflection, I think youre right. People somehow think SNT is this esoteric, mysterious concoction. That has to my fault. I need to get people over the two hurdles, after which SNT is dead simple. You can make a strong argument that it is too simple. Time to try again.
I have a horrible record with editors. It has never ended well and in one case in a physical altercation. Besides you are in a better position both background and skills to tell the story to the people you are after. Let's try it the other way. You write up how you would describe SNT and I will check it for accuracy. But it will be your story.
Sounds like a plan, but I would have to know more about it first. Could you send me your best explanatory write-ups? I'll go through those and ask you questions as needed. I believe you have my email address?
SARI (Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information) began first, and then Mohan spun X-LNT from that to pursue Hormesis and LNT exclusively. I've had MANY discussions encouraging him to SCALE down his absolute fixation on hormesis, but to no avail. He's still a qualified. dedicated scientist, but like many of us, he seems to have a blind spot on this issue. Joining SARI (the broader group) will give you a glimpse of what else SARIans discuss, even if you only watch, and don't participate.
Thank-you for a pragmatic charge against the pseudo orthodoxy of LNT. It is based on logic so sound that it makes my head spin wondering why it has taken so long to come to our senses. I agree with your recommendations
"The central issue with LNT is its foundational premise: which is radiation damage cannot be repaired." Even more important is the misconception that damage is caused by a particle interacting with DNA. Most of the damage to DNA is caused by reactive oxygen species, which are buffered in the case of low-dose-rate radiation. This lie is intended to mask the real risk of high-dose-rate radiation by mixing everything up.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/radiation-the-other-conspiracy-of
Jack:
This piece is an especially valuable commentary on an important and timely topic. I hope it gets the distribution to the right readers that it deserves.
Aside from the specific topic of radiation harm models, I was also intrigued by general comments about the areas where AI might actually be useful.
"The survey of "Current Scientific Evidence" in the INL report could have been done far better by AI. I doubt if AI would have so carefully avoided the exposures that confirm that LNT's denial of our DNA repair ability leads to many order of magnitude errors for the sort of dose rate profiles incurred in a nuclear power plant release."
AI should become an important and perhaps required tool for those tasked with reviewing "survey" type studies. Too many of those that are used as policy justifications take similar selective liberties as the ones that you describe for INWORKS. The authors, often with an end in mind, pick and choose which studies they use.
Within chosen sources, they emphasize certain sections while rejecting others.
AI models could be readily trained to avoid such slanting.
Rod,
They can also be easily programmed to include such slanting.
At least ChatGPT can be coached. A friend of mine got the program to say nasty things about LNT and sort of support SNT by continually asking searching questions about LNT and pointing the program towards SNT. Here's a small part of the conversation
Coach:
Could "SNT" Mean Sigmoid No-Threshold?
Program:
Yes, "Sigmoid No-Threshold" (SNT) could be a valid interpretation. A sigmoidal (S-shaped) dose-response curve is often seen in biological systems and could describe radiation effects better than LNT. A sigmoidal SNT model would predict:
Negligible or no harm at very low doses (flattened region at the bottom). Gradual increase in risk as dose rises. Steep rise after exceeding the body’s repair capacity. A plateau at very high doses (where radiation becomes overwhelmingly damaging). This would better match real-world biological data where:
Low-dose exposures show no measurable harm. The body's repair mechanisms handle moderate levels of DNA damage. Only high doses overwhelm repair capacity, leading to clear risks. Would you like to see a plotted version of these potential SNT curves?
To determine the maximum chronic daily dose rate that showed no increased cancer risk, we need to look at the dose accumulation pattern of the radium dial painters.
Key Findings from Radium Dial Painter Studies:
Bone Absorbed Dose with No Increased Cancer: The reanalysis of the dial painters (Rowland et al., 1993) x found no increase in bone sarcomas in individuals who absorbed up to 1,000 rad (10 Gy) over their working lifetime. Some individuals with cumulative doses up to 2,500 rad (25 Gy) also showed no statistically significant increase in cancer outside of bone sarcomas. Exposure Duration and Daily Dose Rate: Dial painters typically worked 5 days a week for 5–10 years, with internal deposition of radium leading to chronic alpha irradiation of bone. A 1,000 rad (10 Gy) cumulative dose over 10 years corresponds to an annual dose of 100 rad (1 Gy/year). This translates to about 0.27 rad/day (2.7 mGy/day) as an average daily dose rate.
And on and on. By askign the program a different series of questions, you could get it to defend LNT.
Jack
Great review comments Jack! Please consider joining some prestigious like-minded colleagues at: https://radiationeffects.org/
https://radiationeffects.org/members/
It's free and a great source of discussion threads and exp[ertise!
marklmiller20@gmail.com
LNT/ALARA are the bane of progress of things nuclear!
Mark,
I was granted temporary access to the SARI discussion group to make the argument for replacing LNT with SNT. That argument was rejected on the grounds that SNT claims that hormetian effects can be neglected in the dose rate profiles incurred in a NNP release at least for regulatory purposes. As far as I can tell, I failed to persuade any member of SARI to support SNT before my temporary access lapsed.
Jack,
The discussion threads get pretty complicated, given some of the expertise and experience (and professional opinions). Don't let that put you off! I've learned LOTS from following the threads. The SNT/LNT/hormesis thread is just tip of the story. I can barely grasp some of the nuances discussed on certain topics sometimes! (...and I was a Certified Health Physicist for 42 years.)
I'm not familiar with "my temporary access lapsed.". Here's what transpired in 2023:
Mohan Doss mohan.doss@x-lnt.org via googlegroups.com
Dear All,
After reviewing all the responses, I have decided to welcome Jack Devanney to sari-list as a member. He meets the qualifications to be invited as a member. He can leave sari-list when he wants. Thanks for all your feedbacks.
With best regards,
Mohan
SARI came first and x-LNT.org spun off from that to focus on JUST LNT.
Mohan Doss manages the gmail lists. Should I email him to correct the apparent misunderstanding/problem?
Mark Milelr, CHP
Mark,
There is no misunderstanding. I asked Mohan if I could get access to the group since there was some discussion among SARI about SNT on the forum that I thought needed clarification. Mohan graciously said OK, but at least in my mind it was a 'special purpose membership". For one thing. I do not agree with SARI's attempt to make hormesis the law of the land. I am sharply critical of their attempt to replace LNT with a model they cant even properly define. (Show me the computer program that can convert any dose rate profile into a prediction of cancer incidence.) I pushed SNT as hard as I could for a few months at SARI to no avail. I had my say and it was time to go.
Jack,
Mohan is a blind supporter of hormesis and getting rid of LNT. In fact, he took the initiative to set up the X-LNT org. It hasn't had much traction.
Mohan and many SARIans have had many discussions over the years about hormesis. For MY part, I've repeatedly suggested that Mohan temper his position on the subject with something that is more palatable and understandable than something he seems to think is black/white only.
He'll likely never change much, but the SARI group is FULL of highly qualified folks that I disagree with on certain issues. I'm more of a pragmatist/realist myself and figure that if I can't fully understand it, the public will NEVER buy it.
The profession is sometimes its own worst enemy. They don't seem to realize that perfect is the enemy of good enough. Radiophobia and its consequences results.
Please reconsider your decision to not participate in SARI. Even if you don't wish to actively engage, you can glean a LOT from just scanning some of the discussion threads (I have). I like to follow some of your writings! The world of SARI would be better with you around. (BTW, the website SHOWS you as a member, but if your email (gmail) is goofed up, we can fix that.)
Respectfully, Mark
Mark,
In order to replace LNT we must have a well-defined replacement,
where well-defined means complies with the computer program rule.
Hand waving about hormesis won't cut it. Tossing the word "threshold" around without saying exactly what teh word means nor just where that threshold is, nor what [repair] period it applies to, nor saying what happens if the threshold i s exceeded just plays into the hands of the LNT defenders.
The anti_LNT forces must coalesce around a single well defined harm model or we will be stuck in LNT quicksand forever. SNT is a well-defined model that does a surprisingly good job of replicating the data despite its simplicity. SNT does not allow the LNT defenders the very effective prove-there-is-a-threshold argument. SNT desperately needs people with medical credentials to get behind it. I had hoped I could convince SARI to do that. Doss gave me the opportunity and it went nowhere.
I'm an engineer, not a scientist. I'm interested in getting things done, not endless discussions aimed at showing how smart I think I am. I see no point in re-engaging with SARI. They are a dead end.
Good stuff as always, Jack. One thing you mentioned: "The central issue with LNT is its foundational premise: which is radiation damage cannot be repaired."
Exactly. So may I suggest that you frame SNT around the fact of repair, because it's a dose-repair profile, and not just a dose-rate profile. Repair is how and why you can bend the LNT line into an S.
Repair is the key concept that has to be driven home to kill LNT. Because of LNT, many people believe there is no repair -- even though repair a key concept in nuclear medicine, which is almost universally accepted by the public. (Go figure.)
Repair that counteracts damage is the central concept of SNT -- if the repair rate exceeds the damage rate, a person will be fine.
So I think you need to make this a central part of your SNT pitch.
Mike,
Repair has been a central part of the SNT pitch from the start. Who was the first to call LNT the no repair model? SNT is perhaps the simplest model that recognizes repair. Why else divide a dose rate profile into repair periods? The argument is most clearly enunciated in the HWCMNCA book which spends a chapter on DNA damage and repair before even discussing radiation harm models.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F32KLXRJ
But I can't make people read the book.
All true, but TBH, in the numerous times I've encountered SNT, or mentions of it, I never absorbed the fact that it's a repair model until I read the two pdfs you sent me, and finally had the realization.
Granted, I'm a writer and not a scientist, but maybe that makes me a good litmus test. And for all the familiarity I've had with this general subject of nuclear power, radiation, etc. these last 12 years, it didn't dawn on me that SNT is a repair model until I dug into the pdfs and had the realization.
Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but then, neither has the public. So as some unsolicited advice from one writer to another, maybe you could pitch it / frame it / title it as the SNT Model of Radiation Repair, and keep pounding on that key concept, loudly and often, using the word "repair" in every mention, and in the title of every paper, until it finally punches through society's nuclear fear. Because as soon as the public realizes that repair is possible, LNT will fall apart.
Good points. In case anybody is interested the two PDF's Mike mentions are
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/the-dumbest-graph-of-all-time/
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/a-plug-in-replacement-for-lnt/
(The Flop book website can be very slow. Give it time.)
The idea behind SNT is stupid simple: divide the dose rate profile into repair periods, and treat each repair period separately.
But it takes two mental breakthroughs.
1) Nobody gets "a dose". We get a dose rate profile. This should be obvious but LNT has so deeply infected the radiation discussion, that for the fully indoctrinated it takes an epiphany. The easiest people to explain SNT to are blue collar guys and high school kids. An open minded writer is far more likely to get it , then a PhD who has spent his whole career thinking about "the dose".
2) Damage is not harm. Duh! Almost all DNA damage is repaired. It's the residue, actually the misrepaired residue that can cause cancer. But if there is no repair, then damage is equivalent to harm. No repair is LNT's foundational premise. Once again LNT has become so deeply embedded, that the damage is harm has become almost an axiom. It takes mental effort to separate the two.
On reflection, I think youre right. People somehow think SNT is this esoteric, mysterious concoction. That has to my fault. I need to get people over the two hurdles, after which SNT is dead simple. You can make a strong argument that it is too simple. Time to try again.
This is great. Thanks so much for taking what I said to heart. I really think you have something, and I want to see it get more visibility.
The way I explained SNT it to myself is that, if the repair rate exceeds the dose rate, you'll be fine. If it doesn't, you'll have problems.
I'd be happy to help with any edits or feedback as you revise your SNT material.
Mike,
I have a horrible record with editors. It has never ended well and in one case in a physical altercation. Besides you are in a better position both background and skills to tell the story to the people you are after. Let's try it the other way. You write up how you would describe SNT and I will check it for accuracy. But it will be your story.
Sounds like a plan, but I would have to know more about it first. Could you send me your best explanatory write-ups? I'll go through those and ask you questions as needed. I believe you have my email address?
Jack,
Just a minor clarification:
SARI (Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information) began first, and then Mohan spun X-LNT from that to pursue Hormesis and LNT exclusively. I've had MANY discussions encouraging him to SCALE down his absolute fixation on hormesis, but to no avail. He's still a qualified. dedicated scientist, but like many of us, he seems to have a blind spot on this issue. Joining SARI (the broader group) will give you a glimpse of what else SARIans discuss, even if you only watch, and don't participate.