Interestingly Stewart Brand was out this year arguing http://edge.org/response-detail/25392 http://edge.org/response-detail/25392 against of the the Linear No-T

Interestingly Stewart Brand was out this year arguing http://edge.org/response-detail/25392 http://edge.org/response-detail/25392 against of the the Linear No-Threshold model of radiation risk: "The "Linear" part of the LNT is true and well documented. Based on long-term studies of survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan and of nuclear industry workers, the incidence of eventual cancer increases with increasing exposure to radiation at levels above 100 millisieverts/year. The effect is linear. Below 100 millisieverts/year, however, no increased cancer incidence has been detected, either because it doesn't exist or because the numbers are so low that any signal gets lost in the epidemiological noise." IDK if his case if convincing or not. In any case, even if say 10, 50 or 100 millisieverts a year is something the human body can shrug off with no increase in risk, I imagine that might not apply to 10-30 millisieverts delivered in a very short interval of time.