Here's a recent article in the Hormies' journal about the "LNT debate". Sounds a lot like the "evolution debate".
It starts out with this lie, "There is considerable interest in revisiting LNT theory...".
No there's not, you (nor anyone else) have provided a reason to revisit it.
The article basically suffers from the fallacy of false equivalency, look to the last sentence:
"However, current epidemiological evidence can neither confirm nor eliminate the existence of a dose threshold."
That's true. But that doesn't mean we conclude the likelihood of a threshold is just a 50-50 guess.
We understand that radiation damages DNA, it sometimes isn't repaired at all or incorrectly, that this results in an accumulation of DNA damage, which increases the risk of cancer.
That's physical evidence we've observed over and over. There is no physical evidence of a threshold.
The paper continues with the fallacious arguments from consequences...ie., if there were a threshold, some things might be less costly. It makes other technical errors, too numerous for me to criticize.
I like this anti-scientific line:
"Absence of evidence of benefit is not evidence of absence of benefit."
Yes, it is. Just like absence of evidence for Jesus is evidence of absence of Jesus.
It's like these people are in a messianic cult, they know the messiah (Threshold) is coming....he just hasn't come to Earth yet.