From here:
"Popular misunderstanding and application of the Linear No-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) to the general population was the biggest cause of any harmful effects."
There are many errors in his blog, but the above sentence is the worst. LNT is not a simple hypothesis, it is the central theory of low dose radiation effects in the science of health physics. It is similar to the place of evolution in biology (DNA mutations in sex cells lead to new organisms, DNA mutations in somatic cells lead to new cell types some of which we call cancer).
LNT wasn't the problem.
It was an overall lack of emergency preparedness and response. The people should have been educated on health physics, what to do in an emergency, how the risks compare with other risks, etc.
The nuclear industry, the government, and the citizens failed to anticipate the emergency. The weren't prepared and responded poorly. That's has nothing to do with LNT.
You're discussing Forbes as if it were a serious publication. You know better than that.
ReplyDeleteObviously it's not. And it's obvious that Conca is acting unethically. Everyone, and particularly everyone with a science degree, should understand that the scientific consensus should be supported. That's how science is fairly done.
ReplyDeleteNot by taking shortcuts by making blog pronouncements in a finance magazine, or in a newspaper op-ed, or in a book, etc.
Conca is not only spitting on health physics, he's spitting on the scientific method.