Fester,

You call everything you disagree with a “lie,” then back it with material that quietly contradicts your own framing.

//“Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia…” must mean direct causation from all reactors everywhere//

No - that’s how you chose to interpret it. The statement used standard epidemiological language about risk. You then imposed a literal, universal causation claim on it so you could call it false.

//It is a general statement and refers to all NPPs, with radioactive emissions the cause, as per this article: [CND leaflet]//

You’re retrofitting intent using a campaign flyer. CND’s framing does not determine what Bronwyn meant. She used “increased risk” - a phrase consistent with the KiKK study, which found a statistically significant correlation. If that’s fearmongering, so is every published study that presents inconvenient findings.

//...all of those [Fukushima] evacuations and decontamination operations took place on the basis of the LNT model... resulting in widespread panic, over 1000 deaths...//

Your own cited article didn’t argue that. It highlighted mental health impacts from fear and isolation, and the need for better communication. That’s a policy failure, not proof that LNT is invalid science.

//The LNT model apportions significant risk where that risk is either non-existent or undetectably small...//

That’s the point. When risks are undetectable, precaution is used. You want a risk model to do the impossible: prove what it can’t detect. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - especially in the low-dose range, where uncertainty is built in.

//You see, another lie...//

No - that was a clarification of scientific process. Models are judged by usefulness and weight of evidence, not perfection. LNT remains the default because, despite its limits, no alternative has proven more suitable. That’s why the ICRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR, WHO, and NRC continue to rely on it.

//The risk you are talking about is either non-existent or too small to be measured.//

That’s an argument for caution, not dismissal. When risk can’t be precisely measured, you don’t just assume it’s zero - not unless your priority is certainty over accuracy.

John,

I come here to learn about a subject. You come here to practice your dishonesty. e.g.:

"Your own cited article didn’t argue that."

Hmmm. From the article:

"The International Commission on Radio-
logical Protection (ICRP) issued an emergency recom-
mendation on March 21, 2011 [1]. The recommendation
was that reference levels for the highest planned residual
dose are set in the band of 20–100 mSv. When the
radiation source is under control, reference levels are in
the band of 1–20 mSv/y. Therefore, 100 mSv at first and
later 20 mSv could be set as the limit doses in time of
great emergency. The Japanese government, however, set
the limit dose as low as 1 mSv for the public in the name
of safety. This low dose conversely impressed danger of
radiation and stirred up fear of radiation, inducing more
than 1600 accident-associated deaths, which is one of tre-
mendous human, social, and economic losses."

To paraphrase, the Japanese government used the LNT model instead of a threshold dose as the ICRP recommended.

"When risk can’t be precisely measured, you don’t just assume it’s zero - not unless your priority is certainty over accuracy."

You minimise risk by defining safe boundaries. If you can demonstrate no harm within those boundaries then you can conclude that they are safe. Assuming harm when exhaustive studies show no harm is unscientific.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Compare two groups of people from birth, one with nbr of 12.5 msv/yr(A), the other with nbr of 2 msv/yr(B). At age 20 you give group B subjects 20 consecutive ct scans (200 msv total) in one day, then monitor the health of the two groups for the next four decades. According to the LNT model the health outcome for group B would be better (725msv(A) vs 320msv(B) cumulative dose). Would you agree that would be the likely outcome?

Fester,

If you come here to learn, then why do you cherry-pick and quote-mine? These are the actions of a someone who is only interested in defending a narrative.

//To paraphrase, the Japanese government used the LNT model instead of a threshold dose as the ICRP recommended.//

That’s not what your cited article actually says. It notes that the ICRP’s emergency reference range was 20–100 mSv, and that post-emergency guidance advised 1–20 mSv/year, depending on context. Japan’s later target of 1 mSv wasn’t “in defiance” of ICRP - it was within the range ICRP listed as appropriate once the source was under control. You’re calling it fearmongering; the ICRP called it prudent risk management.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866430

The tragedy was poor communication and rigid implementation - not the existence of the LNT model.

//Assuming harm when exhaustive studies show no harm is unscientific.//

But exhaustive studies haven’t shown no harm - they’ve shown that effects at low doses are hard to detect statistically, not that risk is zero. That’s why BEIR VII explicitly states:

“The committee concludes that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.”
http://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11340/chapter/2

//According to the LNT model... group B would be better off.//

No. LNT doesn’t treat all dose delivery equally. Dose rate matters, and that’s reflected in both regulatory guidance and the BEIR report. 200 mSv delivered acutely in one day (as in your example) carries more biological risk than the same dose spread chronically over decades. That’s radiation biology 101.

You keep demanding precision where there’s uncertainty, and certainty where there’s caution. But that’s not science - that’s just trying to win the argument by flattening complexity.

John,

I'm not advocating having a holiday at a npp and sun-baking around the reactor. This year will mark the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. An enormous amount of research has been conducted since that time about the potential of ionising radiation to cause harm. That research has shown ionising radiation to be far less harmful than initially believed, prompting many medical specialists, scientists and radiological organisations to call for a model and regulation that better reflects the current understanding.

You, on the other hand, have spent the entirety of this thread defending false statements, misrepresenting my links and arguments, and concocting stories worthy of the IBM, steadfastly preserving your profound ignorance of the subject matter. For example, on a few occasions you said:

"The ICRP, BEIR VII, WHO, UNSCEAR, and NRC still support LNT as the best available model for public health protection."

Tell me, if the IRCP supports the LNT model as you claim, then why did it recommend using a threshold model with a maximum dose of 100 msv/yr for the first year following the Fukushima accident (as an emergency measure)?

I'm trying to help you. Ignorance and impersonating the IBM are your choice.

Fester,

//Tell me, if the ICRP supports the LNT model… why did it recommend using a threshold model with a maximum dose of 100 mSv/yr…?//

Because you're conflating separate things. The ICRP’s 20-100 mSv/year guidance wasn’t some rejection of LNT - it was a practical call for how to manage emergencies, where the bigger danger might come from panic, not the radiation itself.

The ICRP has been crystal clear on this:

“The Commission continues to recommend the use of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) model for the purpose of practical radiation protection… while acknowledging uncertainties at low doses.”
- ICRP Publication 103 (2007)

Japan didn’t implement the upper emergency limit (100 mSv). It opted for 1 mSv, which was stricter than the ICRP recommended - and arguably too strict in that context. That’s a case of overapplication of policy, not a flaw in the LNT model itself. The ICRP’s emergency recommendations were never intended as a rejection of LNT, but as a way to balance radiological risk against the harms of panic and displacement in crisis conditions. Japan simply erred on the side of overcaution.

Your own source - "A message to Fukushima" - blames fear and communication failure for the harm, not LNT as a scientific model. You’re using the consequences of panic to discredit the precaution that should’ve been paired with calm leadership.

//I’m trying to help you.//

You’re not “helping” by misrepresenting policy documents, flattening nuance, and declaring every disagreement a lie. That’s not teaching. That’s trying to win by attrition.

If you want to argue for revising the model, fine. But stop pretending you’ve toppled anything just because you’ve cherry-picked a handful of contrarian takes and misread the rest to fit your script.