2 ms·
LNT is controversial because there is not enough data to support it. The data that we do have doesn't support any low-dose model conclusively as far as I know.
by formerly_proven 5y ago
LNT is controversial because there is not enough data to support it. The data that we do have doesn't support any low-dose model conclusively as far as I know. The upside of this is the effects have to be very small, so it basically doesn't matter, because the risk of low-doses is effectively zero regardless the theory. The problem with LNT in terms of science communication is it's easy to make it sound as-if the risk isn't effectively zero.
- kryogen1c 5y ago> it basically doesn't matter, because the risk of low-doses is effectively zero regardless this is exactly what i said in my original comment. I looked up competing LNT models. TIL about radiation hormesis. theoretically, near-zero but >0 levels of radiation activate dormant repair mechanisms that not only repair radiation damage, but also non-radiation damage; this results in a healthier host. interesting. having thought about this for all of 30 seconds, i wonder if both models arent simultaneously correct. if most radiation damage is repairable, activating dormant repair mechanisms with tiny amounts of radiation would be a net benefit. however, if there exists any possible irrepairable damage in any cell anywhere on your body regardless of otherwise functioning repair processes - which i dont know to be true but seems likely - then LNT could also be true concurrently with radiation hormesis.