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.
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.