Fester,

So now the argument is that Bronwyn’s entire statement must be interpreted as a declaration of direct harm from nuclear power because she began with “Nuclear power is a risky and dangerous pipe dream”?

That’s a stretch.

Not every situation perceived as “risky” turns out to be so - and perceiving something as risky isn’t the same as declaring it harmful. You’re narrowing her words into something rigid and absolute, then treating that as the only possible interpretation. That’s not analysis - it’s opportunistic framing.

//How then did you determine that Bronwyn was only referring to the NPP where the correlation existed?//

I didn’t.

I referred to one study that found a correlation. That’s what responsible people do - point to the evidence that exists. If other plants showed no correlation, then good. That’s part of the broader picture. It doesn’t negate the findings where the correlation was detected.

//LNT is the embodiment of ‘we don’t know.’//

Yes - and that’s exactly why it’s used. When the risk of low doses is uncertain but potentially non-zero, public health errs on the side of caution. That’s not ignorance - it’s risk management. You’re pretending that “not statistically proven harmful” means “safe.” It doesn’t.

And no, the article you linked doesn’t show that global scientific consensus has shifted. It shows that some organisations and professionals prefer a threshold model. That’s been true for decades. Yet the ICRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR, WHO, and NRC still use LNT. Not because they worship dogma, but because no alternative has proven more reliable for setting policy in the face of statistical uncertainty.

You’re not dismantling a consensus - you’re objecting to the existence of one.

John,

You waste half your reply trying to justify a ridiculous assertion that Bronwyn's statement referred only to a correlation that only appies to a couple of npps in Germany. And then this:

"You’re pretending that “not statistically proven harmful” means “safe.” It doesn’t."

When numerous comprehensive studies going back over 70 years, including studies on natural background radiation levels as high as around 50msv, and find no evidence of those populations being at greater risk of harm, then yes, you can claim there to be a very high probability that there are safe levels of radiation exposure.

By persisting with the "there is no safe level of radiation exposure" lie of the lnt model, you cause unnecessary fear and deaths and waste vast resources, as demonstrated by Fukushima, medical and nuclear industry regulation, as well as enabling the the fearmongering spread by activists like Dr Caldicott.

"You’re not dismantling a consensus - you’re objecting to the existence of one."

Another stupid statement from you. From what I read, the lnt model is so flawed that it is unlikely that any working in the industry think it valid.

"Yet the ICRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR, WHO, and NRC still use LNT. Not because they worship dogma, but because no alternative has proven more reliable for setting policy in the face of statistical uncertainty."

I'd suggest that the main reason the model exists is because of the irrational fear of radiation that exists in the community, and the model itself perpetuates that fear with its invalid assertions. All aspects of life carry risk, but treating something as being highly dangerous when it is of very small or no danger serves no useful purpose and can be harmful of itself. Fukushima well demonstrates the waste of human life and resources from following a model based on falsehoods.

Fester,

You begin by mocking me for “wasting half my reply” clarifying Bronwyn’s words. But let’s remember how this started: you took her broad statement about increased cancer risk near nuclear plants and reframed it - multiple times - as a definitive claim that any exposure, even 1/200th of background radiation, causes cancer.

That misrepresentation wasn’t just a side note. It was the keystone of your accusation of dishonesty.

You’re now insisting she “meant direct harm,” and that I’ve lied by acknowledging it as a correlation claim. But that rigid reading isn’t supported by her wording. “Risk” implies correlation. Not every situation perceived as “risky” proves dangerous - but that doesn’t make it dishonest to call it a risk.

You then make the sweeping assertion that no harm has been observed below 100 mSv exposure, and therefore, it’s safe. But that’s not how risk works - especially when effects are stochastic. As UNSCEAR itself puts it:

“It is acknowledged that the possible risks from very low doses... are small and uncertain and that it may never be possible to prove or disprove the validity of the linear no-threshold assumption by epidemiologic means.”

That’s not a refutation of LNT - it’s a limitation of epidemiology at low doses. And it’s precisely why LNT is used: because the alternative is pretending we know more than we do.

Finally, your suggestion that LNT persists solely because of “irrational fear” ignores reality. The ICRP, BEIR VII, WHO, UNSCEAR, and NRC still support LNT as the best available model for public health protection. Are they all clinging to dogma too? Or is it just that you don’t like the conclusion?

Consensus isn’t infallibility. But rejecting it because it isn’t perfect - and replacing it with ideology masquerading as certainty - isn’t how science works.

You keep accusing others of fearmongering, but let’s be honest: this isn’t about fear. It’s about control over the narrative. And right now, the facts aren’t on your side - which is why you're still just spinning your wheels here.

John,

The Forum gives opportunity to discuss and learn about topics, yet you only seem intent on maintaining your ignorance and concocting idiotic arguments.

Bronwyn stated,

"Nuclear power is a risky and dangerous pipe dream"

then made statements about nuclear power, including,

"10. Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer.".

The statement is general, infers that npps cause cancer in chidren, and is false. You claim it's true because you believe Bronwyn was referring only to a correlation for children under 5 years living <5km from three nuclear power stations in Germany. Incidentally, the correlation disappears if the data from one of the npps is removed.

"You then make the sweeping assertion that no harm has been observed below 100 mSv exposure, and therefore, it’s safe."

John, that "sweeping statement" is based on an absence of evidence of harm below those levels of exposure. My claim is that radiation safety should be risk based.

"But that’s not how risk works - especially when effects are stochastic."

You are making a claim based on the lnt model, essentially a circular argument.

"That’s not a refutation of LNT - it’s a limitation of epidemiology at low doses. And it’s precisely why LNT is used: because the alternative is pretending we know more than we do."

And that is precisely why over a thousand people died unnecessarily from being relocated in Fukushima. Risk should be based on what is real and measurable, not on what you might imagine it to be. The risk you are talking about is either non-existent or too small to be measured. Basing policy on the false claim of there being no safe dose is demonstrably harmful and wasteful of resources.

"but let’s be honest: this isn’t about fear"

Honesty from you, John? What, from the guy who argues that a false statement actually means something quite different to what it says, making it true? You have amply proven yourself a scaremonger as well as a buffoon for your use of idiotic arguments.

Fester,

You accuse me of “concocting idiotic arguments,” yet continue insisting that Bronwyn’s statement - “Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia…” - must mean direct causation from all reactors everywhere, even though it makes no such claim.

You call it “general,” and then hold it to the standard of an airtight, dose-specific scientific conclusion. That’s not how honest reading works. “Increased risk” is the language used in epidemiology to describe correlation. It’s consistent with the findings of the KiKK study - which you now try to dismiss because its significance drops if one NPP is excluded. That’s called nuance, not disproof.

//That sweeping statement is based on absence of evidence of harm.//

That’s the issue. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - especially when we’re talking about low-dose, stochastic effects. Epidemiology has blind spots at low levels, which is why precaution is used. You’re demanding “proof of harm” before accepting any protective model, while ignoring the fact that lack of statistical detection doesn’t mean zero risk.

You claim LNT causes fear. But the problem at Fukushima wasn’t that the model existed - it was that evacuations weren’t matched with good crisis communication or risk balancing. LNT didn't kill anyone. Poor implementation and panic did. That’s not an argument against risk modelling - it’s an argument for better planning.

You accuse me of circular reasoning, but what’s your model? “We didn’t detect harm, so there’s none”? That’s not science. That’s overconfidence dressed as clarity.

And as for your latest burst of insults - “buffoon,” “scaremonger,” “idiotic arguments” - that’s not how people behave when they’re confident in their evidence. It’s how they act when the argument’s slipping.

You’re not disproving LNT. You’re just trying to bluster past it.

John,

"“Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia…” - must mean direct causation from all reactors everywhere, even though it makes no such claim."

It is a general statement and refers to all npps, with radioactive emissions the cause, as per this article:

https://cnduk.org/resources/infant-leukaemia-near-nuclear-power-stations/

So yes, a clear case of telling lies for the purpose of fearmongering by you and Bron.

As for Fukushima, all of those evacuations and decontamination operations took place on the basis of the LNT model, when the reality was that the risk was greatly exaggerated, resulting in widespread panic, over 1000 deaths, and a great waste of resources. Here is a commentary on the matter by one of the volunteers:

"The most threatening public health issue is the adverse effect on mental health caused by undue fear of radiation."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301313856_A_message_to_Fukushima_Nothing_to_fear_but_fear_itself

"“We didn’t detect harm, so there’s none”? That’s not science. That’s overconfidence dressed as clarity."

John, a scientific approach is to address the problems posing greatest risk. The LNT model apportions significant risk where that risk is either non-existent or undetectably small (no safe exposure). This approach diverts resources from addressing measurable and significant risk, which is unscientific and demonstrably harmful.

"It’s how they act when the argument’s slipping."

No, that is my reaction to your repeated lies, and you forgot to add IBM Johnny.

"You’re not disproving LNT."

You see, another lie. Scientific hypotheses are not assumed to be true until proven false. They are accepted because they are evidence based. The LNT model was allegedly founded on flawed evidence, is confounded by studies on natural background radiation as well as the study of Hiroshima survivors, the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, and remains unverifiable below annual exposures below 100 msv per year. For example, the Inworks study also shows nuclear workers to be in better health than the general population, then incurs an arbitrary and subjective penalty to claim a very small risk.

Radiation, as with all potential hazards, should be managed in proportion to the risk it poses. That is not the case with the LNT model.