The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence (after all, radiation is not a criminal defendant that's innocent until proven guilty). This would make low level radiation more dangerous than predicted by LNT, not less.

>The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence

No, the alternative is to look at the actual data (including the actual dose-response curves), rather than fabricating fraudulent data to fit the LNT model (externally imposing a wrongly-shaped dose-response curve by fiat).

Here's one of the more relevant timestamps from the talk, a section which then runs on into Part 3.[0]

However to know what's going on, you really should just watch the whole thing prior to formulating your next counterpoint. Otherwise this immediately devolves into a very long and boring comment thread, where I laboriously digest the points from the video and feed them to you through an HN comment-sized straw. ;)

[0] https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671

The LNT is consistent with the real world data, cherrypicked bullshit from pseudoscientists notwithstanding.

This is why the NRC recently rejected a call to stop using LNT in setting regulations. Their responses to the details of the petitions are pretty damning.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671

Now, at the very low doses typical of large scale exposure from nuclear accidents, it's true that the evidence does not directly require LNT. That's because the effect predicted by LNT is so small at those doses that it's swamped by noise and unmodelled biases. No practically obtainable data could do the trick.

But note what this means: the data at those low doses is so poor that it's consistent with an effect greater than from LNT. It cannot rule this out.

I'll add that a favorite pseudoscientific claim from the radiation apologists, radiation hormesis, would imply a larger effect from radiation at low doses than predicted by LNT. That's because hormesis putatively acts by inducing repair mechanisms above some dose, bending the curve downward. Below that putative threshold, the curve has a high slope (and thus more damage per increment of dose) than the linear curve of the LNT.

My mistake. You're right.

Go back and read about the malfeasance of the petitioners there. They do things like cite a study, neglecting later data from the same study where the effect they want no longer shows up in the better data.

Policy has to go beyond what is rigorously demonstrated. It's not like criminal law. Technologies are not innocent until proven guilty. Just because LNT cannot be demonstrated at the doses relevant to nuclear accidents doesn't mean regulators should assume no effect.

Claims of malfeasance go in both directions.

>Policy has to go beyond what is rigorously demonstrated.

Thanks. I can see we're done here.

Yes, indeed. We are done. You are living in a fantasyland, not in the real world of how regulation and politics actually work.

But at least you can admit LNT is consistent with the evidence? The claim to the contrary is an outright lie.

Sure why not? If it makes your day get any brighter: you're always right and good, and I'm always wrong and bad. :)

Cheers.