The consensus does not exist. The LNT model is convenient because it lends itself to easy measurement, and extremely low radiation exposure (e.g. non-nuclear wo

The consensus does not exist. The LNT model is convenient because it lends itself to easy measurement, and extremely low radiation exposure (e.g. non-nuclear work on a submarine) can't be tied to any specific risk. You wouldn't want an occupational health organization behaving in any other way. On the other hand, LNT utterly fails to address the well-documented trend that people in areas of high background exposure experience lower rates of cancer. The mechanisms of this effect are not understood, though often hypothesized, nor is there any strong argument for a particular upper limit (though plenty of known examples, like smoking and frequent flying, lie beyond it.) I wouldn't advise anyone microdose on radon, nor ignore the risk of radon if you're in the habit of keeping your modern home closed up... but this matter is not settled as you portray. Edit: sorry for my other flippant comment. The confident misunderstanding of science got me a little worked up.