> Flat earth fails on evidence, radiation threshold fails for lack of evidence to support it over an older theory.
We've got oodles of evidence. People have been looking to black-eye the nuclear proponents for 40 years after Chernobyl and nobody has turned up any evidence. At some point, maybe 20 years, maybe 30 years or even 40 years the overwhelming lack of any evidence of harm becomes evidence that none was done.
> That’s not to say it’s a pure linear relationship, but the slope can’t be zero.
Well no that isn't true. Stepping out of the nuclear realm, this is very similar to arguing that a railgun will blast a hole in a building, a wrecking ball will knock a smaller hole in a building and therefore enough youths punching buildings will statistically knock one over.
That isn't going to happen. If that logic works out we are talking a seriously troubled building. A building that a stiff breeze could knock over, and a building that is almost surely knocked over before the youths get to it to punch it. The slope becomes indistinguishable from zero - in fact, it probably is zero. I doubt you'll want to contest that but if you do I would encourage some reflection on what a feeble hill that is to fight on vs real-life policies that actually matter for bringing energy to millions of humans and saving a measurable number of lives vs coal power or even solar installation.
This argument that thresholds are impossible is taking no cues from all the other forces, where there are clear thresholds below which no damage is done. An equivalent number of spaced out flicks deals nowhere near the damage of a punch, and there is a threshold below which force does no practical harm. Your argument we shouldn't take cues from the other forces is the first people to look at the problem drew a straight line through the data and therefore you don't want to accept that vanishingly small forces are probably irrelevant. An opinion held in an unscientific defiance of the preponderance of evidence, I cheerfully add.
There is zero direct evidence for departure from the LNT at the doses that would be relevant for the larger population in a nuclear accident. The reason is simple: for any individual, the extra chance of cancer would be so small that it could not be detected in the very large background of cancer from all sources.
We've got oodles of evidence. People have been looking to black-eye the nuclear proponents for 40 years after Chernobyl and nobody has turned up any evidence. At some point, maybe 20 years, maybe 30 years or even 40 years the overwhelming lack of any evidence of harm becomes evidence that none was done.
> That’s not to say it’s a pure linear relationship, but the slope can’t be zero.
Well no that isn't true. Stepping out of the nuclear realm, this is very similar to arguing that a railgun will blast a hole in a building, a wrecking ball will knock a smaller hole in a building and therefore enough youths punching buildings will statistically knock one over.
That isn't going to happen. If that logic works out we are talking a seriously troubled building. A building that a stiff breeze could knock over, and a building that is almost surely knocked over before the youths get to it to punch it. The slope becomes indistinguishable from zero - in fact, it probably is zero. I doubt you'll want to contest that but if you do I would encourage some reflection on what a feeble hill that is to fight on vs real-life policies that actually matter for bringing energy to millions of humans and saving a measurable number of lives vs coal power or even solar installation.
This argument that thresholds are impossible is taking no cues from all the other forces, where there are clear thresholds below which no damage is done. An equivalent number of spaced out flicks deals nowhere near the damage of a punch, and there is a threshold below which force does no practical harm. Your argument we shouldn't take cues from the other forces is the first people to look at the problem drew a straight line through the data and therefore you don't want to accept that vanishingly small forces are probably irrelevant. An opinion held in an unscientific defiance of the preponderance of evidence, I cheerfully add.