Fester,

Your sources continue to challenge the LNT model - but they don’t overturn the consensus. They just show what we already know: below 100 mSv, risks are hard to measure. Not absent. Just hard to measure.

You quote the UNSCEAR report:

“It is acknowledged that the possible risks from very low doses of low linear-energy-transfer radiation 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 condemnation. It’s a call for scientific caution in the face of statistical limits. Precautionary models are often adopted precisely because the harm, while uncertain, could still be real.

Then there’s this:

“A glaring problem with the LNT model is a failure to find any risk from background radiation.”

Yet background radiation varies widely, and detecting differences requires vast, highly controlled populations. And still, studies like INWORKS have shown cancer risk increases even at low cumulative doses across large worker cohorts.

//Note also that you and Bronwyn claimed that a radiation exposure less than 1/200th that of average background radiation caused cancer in children.//

Neither of us said that. The studies we cited reported a statistical correlation near some facilities, not a claim of universal causation at 1/200th dose levels. You’re framing it that way because it’s easier to attack. That’s not rebuttal - it’s distortion.

As for your final flourish - “the LNT model, just like IBM Johnny, has been dishonest from inception” - let’s just say: personal attacks don’t strengthen weak arguments. The LNT model remains the default for radiation protection globally, endorsed by UNSCEAR, WHO, ICRP, BEIR VII, and virtually every radiation safety body. It’s not perfect. But it’s not a fraud.

And no, linking to Calabrese interviews doesn’t prove fraud either. It proves that dissent exists - which we already knew. That’s science. But dissent doesn’t equal consensus, and it certainly doesn’t mean Bronwyn “lied.”

John,

"Neither of us said that. The studies we cited reported a statistical correlation near some facilities, not a claim of universal causation at 1/200th dose levels. You’re framing it that way because it’s easier to attack. That’s not rebuttal - it’s distortion."

You really are a shameless liar. Here is Bronwyn's claim that you support:

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

Aside from the fact that there was evidence of cancer prior to one of the NPPs being commissioned, the exposure from the operating plant amounted to an extra 1/200th background radiation. So yes, you and Bron claimed just that.

Then you go on about the Inworks study like it's some holy relic. It is one study and it is not short of critics, especially as the workers are healthier than the general population until an arbitrary and subjective HWE penalty is imposed.

"But stop pretending that a few contrarian studies invalidate the entire consensus. They don’t. Not by a long shot."

There is a great deal of passion and dissent about this scientific dogma and the harm it does, for example the opportunity it gives deceitful fearmongers like you and Bron to tell lies.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d789/1c5eb23d17a447f30c968fd2969bf7e742b1.pdf

Fester,

You're quoting the Cuttler and Calabrese review again, but it doesn’t do what you think it does. It’s not a smoking gun - it’s one of many critiques of the LNT model. That’s valid debate, sure. But it’s still just that: debate. Not demolition.

Let’s break it down:

“The main pitfall of the LNT model is due to the inappropriate extrapolation of mutation and DNA damage studies that were conducted at high radiation doses…”

Yes - that’s the usual critique: that LNT was based on high-dose data extrapolated downward. But that doesn’t equal fraud. In fact, every major radiation health body - UNSCEAR, ICRP, BEIR - acknowledges this limitation and still uses LNT precisely because we lack conclusive epidemiological data at very low doses. It’s a precautionary model - not dogma.

Even the UNSCEAR report you quoted earlier makes this clear:

“It may never be possible to prove or disprove the validity of the linear no-threshold assumption by epidemiologic means."

Translation: uncertainty exists, but LNT remains the safest, most conservative model for public health policy. And yes - the risks at very low doses may be tiny, or even zero. But “tiny” isn’t the same as “non-existent.”

As for Bronwyn’s comment, you keep misrepresenting it. She said:

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

That’s correlation - not a claim of direct, universal causation from 1/200th background levels. Studies like the KiKK study found statistically significant associations near some plants. They did not declare “radiation caused this,” and neither did Bronwyn. Again, that’s your strawman - not her position.

And finally, you still haven’t answered the key point: if you’re rejecting LNT as invalid, are you also rejecting every global radiation safety standard built on it? Because that would mean arguing that the ICRP, UNSCEAR, BEIR, the U.S. NRC, and the WHO have all been duped by fraud - for decades.

That’s not science. That’s conspiracy theory in a lab coat.

John,

I have learned much during the course of this discussion, but you, with your deceit and dishonesty, have only succeeded in clinging to your ignorance.

Bronwyn's claims were about the direct harm from nuclear power, not its chance correlation with disease as you falsely claim. It was your persistence with this nonsense that made realise that you were using the LNT model, and as it turned out you were using the model incorrectly.

Further, on your claim of consensus for the LNT model, a survey mentioned in the following article showed only 20% support compared with about 70% supporting a threshold model. It also included this comment from the Australasian Radiation Protection Society:

"There is insufficient epidemiological evidence to establish a dose-effect relationship for effective doses of less than a few tens of millisieverts in a year above the background level of exposure and further,…no inference may be drawn concerning the risk to health or risk of fatality of an individual from an effective dose below 10 mSv in a year. For individual doses less than some tens of millisieverts in a year, risk inferences are unreliable and carry a large uncertainty that includes the possibility of zero risk.68"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6043938/

I can also link you to a criticism of the Inworks study if you like, but the general gist of my reading has been that epidemiological studies are pretty much pointless for trying to determine effects of annual radiation doses below 100 msv. The greatest risk seems to be from intense exposures, but even those exposures need to be quite large to have an effect.

That’s a bold way to start, Fester.

//I have learned much during the course of this discussion, but you, with your deceit and dishonesty, have only succeeded in clinging to your ignorance.//

Especially considering every accusation of dishonesty so far has either quietly vanished or ended with you misquoting the source. At some point, you need to make good of your claim. That hasn't happened yet.

//Bronwyn's claims were about the direct harm from nuclear power, not its chance correlation with disease as you falsely claim.//

Again, she said:

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

That’s a general, correlation-based claim - consistent with studies like KiKK. You’re the one reframing it as a bold assertion of direct causation from minute doses, because that’s easier to attack.

//It was your persistence with this nonsense that made me realise that you were using the LNT model, and as it turned out you were using the model incorrectly.//

Incorrect how? The model’s very premise is that any non-zero dose carries some probability of harm, however small - and that epidemiological limitations make it hard to detect. You’ve offered nothing to show I’ve misrepresented that.

You then cite a survey showing that 70% of respondents supported a threshold model. I know the article. It refers to a 2015 Health Physics Society survey of radiation professionals, not epidemiologists or regulators. That’s opinion - not policy. Meanwhile, UNSCEAR, ICRP, BEIR, NRC, and WHO still use LNT in radiation protection frameworks.

And yes, the ARPS quote you included says:

“No inference may be drawn… below 10 mSv in a year… includes the possibility of zero risk.”

Right - possibility, not certainty. That’s why LNT is used: not because it’s perfect, but because “we don’t know” isn’t a public health strategy.

If you’ve learned so much from this discussion, then perhaps stop mistaking volume for evidence and start recognising when you’ve been chasing your own tail.

John,

So you are claiming that Bronwyn wasn't stating that npps didn't pose any danger, but merely stating that there was a correlation with childhood cancer rates in their vicinity? You do realise that she began her comment with: "Nuclear power is a risky and dangerous pipe dream"?
Why persist with such lies? For example, studies were conducted around other npps and found no correlation. How then did you determine that B was only referring to the npp where the correlation existed?

"Right - possibility, not certainty. That’s why LNT is used: not because it’s perfect, but because “we don’t know” isn’t a public health strategy."

Yet again demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. LNT is the embodiment of "we don't know". What is known is that no harm has been observed below 100msv exposure: That supports a null hypothesis, not LNT, which is why there are many calls for the model to be abandoned in favour of establishing a threshold model. The link I gave, as well as relating criticism of studies that you hold so highly, includes quotes from many scientific organisations around the globe united in their call for abandonment of the LNT model. How does that support your claim that the model had rock solid support from both scientific studies and organisations? What I see is bureaucracy desperately clinging to a dogma in order to justify its existence.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6043938/