Yes, it's a tiny bit of progress, but Is it a flaw when your foundational premise is indisputably false? We have an opportunity but we need to stop tippy toeing. The first step is for us to stop talking about dose, and only talk about dose rate profiles. I've been way too tolerant. Any comment by the choir that refers to "dose" in an unqualified manner will result in the doseist being thrown over the railing and his choir robe burned at his funeral .
The Wall Street Journal article is titled, "Trump’s Unsung Economic Booster: Deregulation - Nuclear power exemplifies how revamping dated and onerous rules could kick-start investment and innovation," Greg Ip, Updated July 11, 2025 1:37 pm ET.
For a non-technical audience, maybe just start with: "LNT produces wrong, alarmist, predictions for virtually any situation involving nuclear power. These predictions of harm can be too high by factors of a thousand or even much higher."
Explanations of the role of repair are great for those with an attention span exceeding 5 seconds.
Note: I said "virtually any situation". The exception might be the Chernobyl fire fighters. 134 * 3 Gray average dose gives about 400 Gray, which gives between 20 and 32 deaths depending upon your multiplier. Interesting this has nothing to do with cancer at all.
The "NT" part of "LNT" implies that there is No Threshold for the lower limit to the amount of damage from exposure to ionizing radiation - which is blatantly false. Exposure to very high and acute levels of ionizing radiation causes Acute Radiation Syndrome which is often fatal. The deaths of Chernobyl fire fighters, staff, and liquidators was not (well, should not have been) a surprise to anyone familiar with the way WWII ended. The only relevance of these high exposures to "LNT" was the assumption that the nearly linear response to exposure to very high and acute levels of ionizing radiation should be extrapolated to low and chronic levels of exposure.
The "virtually any situation" qualifier should be eliminated. All experience with chronic low dose exposures, including Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fukushima, nuclear weapons testing, and so on; show that LNT is flat-out wrong. Even switching the supposed harm from ARS to cancer did not lend any support to LNT. The search for harmful biological effects caused by low level radiation has only found results that are within the margin of error close to zero. (note - both sides of zero - hormetic effects have not been ruled out)
As I've said over and over, the way to go after LNT is the L not the NT. L is the No Repair part. I'll try one more time.
The thresholder claim of absolutely zero harm up to a dose (or is it a dose rate?), which they cannot pinpoint over an usually undisclosed period, is probably false in a strict sense and is certainly unprovable. Differentiating between undetectable and zero is by definition impossible.
As a practical matter, there is no difference. A risk you cannot detect is hardly a risk at all. But as a political matter, the thresholders give LNTers a way to defend the indefensible. LNTer's cant defend LNT, which denies well established biology and is off by orders of magnitude when a large dose is received more or less evenly over a protracted period, because of its failure to model repair. So they work very hard to set up a false dichotomy. It's either LNT or a threshold. This dichotomy is their only hope. They can then point out the thresholders can't prove there is a threshold, so the only thing left is LNT.
The thresholders fall willingly, even enthusiastically, into this trap, which was set for them by Herman Muller in 1948. They are the best allies LNT could ask for.
Respectfully disagree. From my experience, your "non-technical audience" is perfectly capable of understanding repair. And they need and deserve an explanation to counter the lie they have been told their whole life by the nuclear establishment. The people who are not capable are the highly college indoctrinated, some of whom have PhD's The smarter ones are defending LNT for selfish reasons and know they are misleading, the others are just sheep,
The key feature of the ARS dose RATE PROFILE at Chernobyl is that these very large doses were received over a period of a few hours or less. A chorister does not mention dose without talking about the timing. If the only thing that counts is total dose, you are an LNTer.
I sent a proposed presentation to the NRC. Have not heard back. I do not intend to attend.
At least the MSM is talking about LNT. Here’s hoping the flaws of LNT become a hot topic and more people understand that DNA damage is repairable.
Tom,
Yes, it's a tiny bit of progress, but Is it a flaw when your foundational premise is indisputably false? We have an opportunity but we need to stop tippy toeing. The first step is for us to stop talking about dose, and only talk about dose rate profiles. I've been way too tolerant. Any comment by the choir that refers to "dose" in an unqualified manner will result in the doseist being thrown over the railing and his choir robe burned at his funeral .
Thank you. I agree that LNT is flat wrong. LNT was established via scientific misconduct of Hermann Muller. Here's a 2016 paper summary by Edward Calabrese. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935116301219
The Wall Street Journal article is titled, "Trump’s Unsung Economic Booster: Deregulation - Nuclear power exemplifies how revamping dated and onerous rules could kick-start investment and innovation," Greg Ip, Updated July 11, 2025 1:37 pm ET.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/trumps-unsung-economic-booster-deregulation-e46bce0b?st=i7nU5N&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
For a non-technical audience, maybe just start with: "LNT produces wrong, alarmist, predictions for virtually any situation involving nuclear power. These predictions of harm can be too high by factors of a thousand or even much higher."
Explanations of the role of repair are great for those with an attention span exceeding 5 seconds.
Note: I said "virtually any situation". The exception might be the Chernobyl fire fighters. 134 * 3 Gray average dose gives about 400 Gray, which gives between 20 and 32 deaths depending upon your multiplier. Interesting this has nothing to do with cancer at all.
Will you be online with the NRC on Wed July 16?
The "NT" part of "LNT" implies that there is No Threshold for the lower limit to the amount of damage from exposure to ionizing radiation - which is blatantly false. Exposure to very high and acute levels of ionizing radiation causes Acute Radiation Syndrome which is often fatal. The deaths of Chernobyl fire fighters, staff, and liquidators was not (well, should not have been) a surprise to anyone familiar with the way WWII ended. The only relevance of these high exposures to "LNT" was the assumption that the nearly linear response to exposure to very high and acute levels of ionizing radiation should be extrapolated to low and chronic levels of exposure.
The "virtually any situation" qualifier should be eliminated. All experience with chronic low dose exposures, including Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fukushima, nuclear weapons testing, and so on; show that LNT is flat-out wrong. Even switching the supposed harm from ARS to cancer did not lend any support to LNT. The search for harmful biological effects caused by low level radiation has only found results that are within the margin of error close to zero. (note - both sides of zero - hormetic effects have not been ruled out)
Virgil,
As I've said over and over, the way to go after LNT is the L not the NT. L is the No Repair part. I'll try one more time.
The thresholder claim of absolutely zero harm up to a dose (or is it a dose rate?), which they cannot pinpoint over an usually undisclosed period, is probably false in a strict sense and is certainly unprovable. Differentiating between undetectable and zero is by definition impossible.
As a practical matter, there is no difference. A risk you cannot detect is hardly a risk at all. But as a political matter, the thresholders give LNTers a way to defend the indefensible. LNTer's cant defend LNT, which denies well established biology and is off by orders of magnitude when a large dose is received more or less evenly over a protracted period, because of its failure to model repair. So they work very hard to set up a false dichotomy. It's either LNT or a threshold. This dichotomy is their only hope. They can then point out the thresholders can't prove there is a threshold, so the only thing left is LNT.
The thresholders fall willingly, even enthusiastically, into this trap, which was set for them by Herman Muller in 1948. They are the best allies LNT could ask for.
Ken,
Respectfully disagree. From my experience, your "non-technical audience" is perfectly capable of understanding repair. And they need and deserve an explanation to counter the lie they have been told their whole life by the nuclear establishment. The people who are not capable are the highly college indoctrinated, some of whom have PhD's The smarter ones are defending LNT for selfish reasons and know they are misleading, the others are just sheep,
The key feature of the ARS dose RATE PROFILE at Chernobyl is that these very large doses were received over a period of a few hours or less. A chorister does not mention dose without talking about the timing. If the only thing that counts is total dose, you are an LNTer.
I sent a proposed presentation to the NRC. Have not heard back. I do not intend to attend.