3 ms·
Um, I don't think the HN title is contrary... Quoting: > What this study adds > The results of an updated study of nuclear workers in France, the UK, and the
by VikingCoder 3y ago
Um, I don't think the HN title is contrary... Quoting:
> What this study adds
> The results of an updated study of nuclear workers in France, the UK, and the US suggest a linear increase in the relative rate of cancer with increasing exposure to radiation
> Some evidence suggested a steeper slope for the dose-response association at lower doses than over the full dose range
> The risk per unit of radiation dose for solid cancer was larger in analyses restricted to the low dose range (0-100 mGy) and to workers hired in the more recent years of operations
- omgJustTest 3y agoThe HN title is "Low dose radiation cancer 2x worse than predicted" than LNT for some unspecified region of the curve... they do not claim LNT is wrong, they do not even present their more sophistocated fits and they do not quote the 2x figure. It is misleading. The paper presents an LNT fit If you want to say "there is a bias above linear-no-threshold in the region less than 200mGy" you are correct, but also say that the bias has large error bars associated with it and that the data may or may not fit that trend. Unless you have p-values to back up the 2x claim, it shouldn't be in the title.