tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410526674358252819.post8289431935460943629..comments2024-03-11T05:09:05.446-05:00Comments on Radiation Information Blog Joint: Consilience & The Death Of A MessiahTheHealthPhysicisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05060756659263075467noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410526674358252819.post-25315438062537554702012-09-04T15:31:36.233-05:002012-09-04T15:31:36.233-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.TheHealthPhysicisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05060756659263075467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410526674358252819.post-72962474680444343492012-09-04T14:05:53.712-05:002012-09-04T14:05:53.712-05:00It's interesting, isn't it, how often that...It's interesting, isn't it, how often that 60-year-old film uses the phrase "dangerous levels of radiation". It implies they were already aware that there are indeed safe levels of radiation.<br /><br />Applying the linear-no-threshold model to low-level radiation is a shining example of a model that has been disproven by the data yet hanging on by inertia and political effects. <br /><br />A no-threshold model would make sense for its simplicity if we have solid data (on this probabilistic effect) at medium to high levels - but only if the data is at least consistent at low levels also. However, in reality, the data at low-level exposures is NOT consistent with a linear extrapolation from the well-understood dangerous levels of radiation. In order to rescue the LNT from statistical oblivion, a fudge factor (DDREF) has been invented, but that completely breaks the only attractive feature of the model - the linear link to higher-level effects.<br /><br />Time to abandon the evidence-free LNT for low level radiation. Thresholds are far simpler.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.com