Mark Twain would update his saying about lies and damned lies once he understood the deadliest graph of all time, the foundation on which the ultimate regulatory ratchet is based, choking off the first nuclear era
This is the graph at the top of the Wikpedia article on LNT. In the lead we find the sentence: "Scientific organizations and government regulatory bodies generally support use of the LNT model,"
I replaced that sentence with:
"Government agencies generally support use of the LNT model. However, many scientists now dispute the LNT assumptions that even low doses are harmful, and all harm is cumulative, no matter how low the dose rate.[4]"
and added the following links as reliable sources:
[4] Here are two scientific organizations that say LNT is bunk:
The videos from Health Physics Society explore the reasons why governments have clung to LNT.
The X-LNT website, sponsored by the Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, has summaries of 7 studies supporting radiation hormesis, with links to the original studies.
My edits were reverted, and VQuakr threatened to ban me. The anti-nuclear bias at WP is still strong.
What we really need is a good encyclopedia article on LNT, something that journalists can read when they get curious and start to learn about nuclear power. Citizendium will welcome such an article. We even have a Debate Guide page where you can call out the bullshit.
The articles have already been written. Your journalists are free to read any of the posts. PDF's of just about all of them have been uploaded to the Flop book site. This last one has a title that might get their attention , but I find your faith in journalists touching. Anyway it is at
Jack, your articles are excellent, but journalists are not reading them. Most journalists are honest, but misinformed. They go to Wikipedia for their information. WP will not accept even a link to your articles. Citizendium will. Jess and I tried submitting one of your articles to CZ, but it was rejected - too much advocacy.
We need a bridge between our nuclear experts and the general public, which like most journalists are anti-nuclear by default. The best I can do as an editor at CZ is offer a neutral forum, like Wikipedia, but with a critical difference - both sides can make their case, in their own words, on our Debate Guide pages. We don't have an article on LNT, but it is covered in our article on Fear of Radiation. Take a look at the debate on LNT. For anyone who appreciates rational debate, the anti-LNT side wins. The pro-LNT side is reduced to claiming that the data must be fake.
I like that. I don't advocate either. I reject the labels pro- and anti-nuclear. One of my favorite journalists, Bob Woodward, said "facts are not neutral". My role at CZ is to collect the most important facts for each article, and ensure that both sides have their best arguments on the Debate pages.
I'll have to ask Jess Brewer which article was rejected. As I recall, it was the tone. Like WP, our articles have to show a neutral point of view. This avoids losing our readers who may be skeptical, but can be lead gently to the facts. We can't say "the dumbest graph of all time". Unlike WP, we can add a bit of spice on the Debate pages. One of our critics called our article "disaster porn", and we published his comments in full.
Back to LNT, we need some analysis of that graph contradicting Cohen's study on radon. This is the strongest argument so far on the pro-LNT side, but it basically comes down to: We have to trust this prestigious agency publishing in a prestigious journal with numerous authors having many credentials. My question to the pro-LNT advocate was: Where the hell did you get that data? Unlike Cohen's study, where you can actually download the original data, the source of the pro-LNT data is obscure. We could use a few strong words in response.
I'm trying to follow your dilemma David but getting confused by a few things:
1. CZ doesn't like Jack's "tone" in the articles that were rejected I take it? Perhaps edit the article you seek to reference and get Jack's blessing as his "just the facts" editor?
2. "One of our critics called our article "disaster porn", and we published his comments in full. [on the debate page?]"
That sounds like advocacy to me which is allowed if I follow correctly. Why not counter such "advocacy" with a reference to Jack's article(s) considered to be advocacy?
3. "we need some analysis of that graph contradicting Cohen's study on radon. "
Which graph is that? Certainly Cohen's data is solid so how is it being countered?
1. CZ does provide links to Jack's articles, and quotes him directly on the Debate Guide pages. I try to avoid taking sides in my role as editor. Jack's time is best spent on his own articles. You could be the advocate, however, and write responses to some of the BS on the CZ Debate pages.
2. Advocacy is allowed on the Debate Guide pages, just not in the articles. CZ is like a regular journal with opinion pages separate from the articles.
Read the Debate Guide page to see my summary of the pro-LNT arguments, including the links back to the original discussions on FaceBook. The guy who was criticizing Cohen won't let me use his name, and normally we would just ignore anonymous advocacy, but that graph, allegedly of real data, is the strongest pro-LNT argument I can find, and therefore CZ must include it. Mike Conley's response to Cohen's critics was perfect. We still need a better response to the pro-:LNT graph.
The LNT was adopted because it allowed John Gofman's conclusions, made from medical observations on the consequences of the use of X-rays, to be swept under the rug. The US army having gotten rid of Gofman, the consequences in have been disastrous, responsible for the current cancer epidemic. This is why the lie is maintained, to the detriment of the nuclear industry.
Your headlines are the best.
Mark Twain would update his saying about lies and damned lies once he understood the deadliest graph of all time, the foundation on which the ultimate regulatory ratchet is based, choking off the first nuclear era
This is the graph at the top of the Wikpedia article on LNT. In the lead we find the sentence: "Scientific organizations and government regulatory bodies generally support use of the LNT model,"
I replaced that sentence with:
"Government agencies generally support use of the LNT model. However, many scientists now dispute the LNT assumptions that even low doses are harmful, and all harm is cumulative, no matter how low the dose rate.[4]"
and added the following links as reliable sources:
[4] Here are two scientific organizations that say LNT is bunk:
HPS https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html
SARI X-LNT https://www.x-lnt.org/evidence-for-radiation-hormesis
The videos from Health Physics Society explore the reasons why governments have clung to LNT.
The X-LNT website, sponsored by the Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, has summaries of 7 studies supporting radiation hormesis, with links to the original studies.
My edits were reverted, and VQuakr threatened to ban me. The anti-nuclear bias at WP is still strong.
What we really need is a good encyclopedia article on LNT, something that journalists can read when they get curious and start to learn about nuclear power. Citizendium will welcome such an article. We even have a Debate Guide page where you can call out the bullshit.
Would you be interested in writing this article?
The articles have already been written. Your journalists are free to read any of the posts. PDF's of just about all of them have been uploaded to the Flop book site. This last one has a title that might get their attention , but I find your faith in journalists touching. Anyway it is at
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/the-dumbest-graph-of-all-time
By the way, bringing hormesis into the discussion is exactly the wrong way to go.
Focus on LNT.
Jack, your articles are excellent, but journalists are not reading them. Most journalists are honest, but misinformed. They go to Wikipedia for their information. WP will not accept even a link to your articles. Citizendium will. Jess and I tried submitting one of your articles to CZ, but it was rejected - too much advocacy.
We need a bridge between our nuclear experts and the general public, which like most journalists are anti-nuclear by default. The best I can do as an editor at CZ is offer a neutral forum, like Wikipedia, but with a critical difference - both sides can make their case, in their own words, on our Debate Guide pages. We don't have an article on LNT, but it is covered in our article on Fear of Radiation. Take a look at the debate on LNT. For anyone who appreciates rational debate, the anti-LNT side wins. The pro-LNT side is reduced to claiming that the data must be fake.
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide
I don't advocate. I analyze. If the analysis comes down in favor of nuclear power, that's just the way it is. Which article was rejected for advocacy?
I like that. I don't advocate either. I reject the labels pro- and anti-nuclear. One of my favorite journalists, Bob Woodward, said "facts are not neutral". My role at CZ is to collect the most important facts for each article, and ensure that both sides have their best arguments on the Debate pages.
I'll have to ask Jess Brewer which article was rejected. As I recall, it was the tone. Like WP, our articles have to show a neutral point of view. This avoids losing our readers who may be skeptical, but can be lead gently to the facts. We can't say "the dumbest graph of all time". Unlike WP, we can add a bit of spice on the Debate pages. One of our critics called our article "disaster porn", and we published his comments in full.
Back to LNT, we need some analysis of that graph contradicting Cohen's study on radon. This is the strongest argument so far on the pro-LNT side, but it basically comes down to: We have to trust this prestigious agency publishing in a prestigious journal with numerous authors having many credentials. My question to the pro-LNT advocate was: Where the hell did you get that data? Unlike Cohen's study, where you can actually download the original data, the source of the pro-LNT data is obscure. We could use a few strong words in response.
I'm trying to follow your dilemma David but getting confused by a few things:
1. CZ doesn't like Jack's "tone" in the articles that were rejected I take it? Perhaps edit the article you seek to reference and get Jack's blessing as his "just the facts" editor?
2. "One of our critics called our article "disaster porn", and we published his comments in full. [on the debate page?]"
That sounds like advocacy to me which is allowed if I follow correctly. Why not counter such "advocacy" with a reference to Jack's article(s) considered to be advocacy?
3. "we need some analysis of that graph contradicting Cohen's study on radon. "
Which graph is that? Certainly Cohen's data is solid so how is it being countered?
1. CZ does provide links to Jack's articles, and quotes him directly on the Debate Guide pages. I try to avoid taking sides in my role as editor. Jack's time is best spent on his own articles. You could be the advocate, however, and write responses to some of the BS on the CZ Debate pages.
2. Advocacy is allowed on the Debate Guide pages, just not in the articles. CZ is like a regular journal with opinion pages separate from the articles.
3. We were talking about the graph in the article I linked above. Here is a link directly to the graph. https://citizendium.org/wiki/File:Lung_Cancer_-_Radon_-_European_Code_.png
Read the Debate Guide page to see my summary of the pro-LNT arguments, including the links back to the original discussions on FaceBook. The guy who was criticizing Cohen won't let me use his name, and normally we would just ignore anonymous advocacy, but that graph, allegedly of real data, is the strongest pro-LNT argument I can find, and therefore CZ must include it. Mike Conley's response to Cohen's critics was perfect. We still need a better response to the pro-:LNT graph.
The LNT was adopted because it allowed John Gofman's conclusions, made from medical observations on the consequences of the use of X-rays, to be swept under the rug. The US army having gotten rid of Gofman, the consequences in have been disastrous, responsible for the current cancer epidemic. This is why the lie is maintained, to the detriment of the nuclear industry.
Sorry I'm confused. Wasn't Gofman instrumental in LNT adoption? What was swept under the rug and what does that have to do with any cancer epidemic?
Yes, the LNT model was the Department of Defense's response to Gofman's observations. https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/radiation-the-other-conspiracy-of?r=kyuna&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true