3 ms·
We have no evidence in favor of the linear no threshold model. That is not the same as saying that we have evidence against it.
by adastra22 4mo ago
We have no evidence in favor of the linear no threshold model. That is not the same as saying that we have evidence against it.
- arcticbull 4mo agoSure but we don’t prove negatives for a reason - it’s impossible. We assume the null hypothesis.
- unholiness 4mo agoLNT is the null hypothesis. No one disagrees a linear model fits the data very well in high doses. If you want to argue that model doesn't work in low doses, you need a model with more parameters and sufficient data to fit it. The issue is that, at these low doses we want to differentiate, we're also looking at effect sizes that are hard to separate from noise, and sampling biases that are hard to erase. There's still lively and ongoing debate.
- looofooo0 4mo agoWell problem is that humans are so noisy through lifestyle, enviroment and genes that any proof for either is really hard.
- unholiness 4mo agoAnother problem is that there haven't been natural experiments in low dose exposures the way there unfortunately have been for high dose exposures.
- haldujai 4mo agoThere is some evidence for hormesis - but yes no model is proven right now. LNT is the most conservative model and part of why it sticks around. A good primer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477686/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477686/
- looofooo0 4mo agoLNT does also damage, as people refusing necessary CT scans or countries switching of nuclear power because of fear.