Thursday, May 10, 2012
The interesting thing is not what it says, but the extraordinary way it tip toes round the elephant in the room - the question of whether the LNT theory is in fact true or even whether there is any actual evidence for it (required if it were to be considered science).
The answer is not only that there is no evidence whatsoever for the hypothesis, but that there is a mass of evidence from unrelated sources that it is false.
To be fair nobody at the Journal; openly lies by pretending there is evidence for it, they merely omit to mention it. It is not like Nature where they specifically refuse to publish proven facts (eg Stephen McIntyre's proof that the Hockey stick was not only worthless but must have been fraudulent) but also published a series of purely ad hom attacks on him personally. These gentlemen are more refined and simply avoid any discussion whatsoever of the fact that the official line has no scientific evidence to back it at all.
I suppose this is how one gets the job of editor on such journals. What a pity they cannot get, or rather choose not to get, anybody with respect for even the basic principles of science.
On the other hand I did learn that the French Academy officially refuses to accept the LNT lie. More [power to them (literally in this case).
Special issue: Low-level radiation
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May//June
Editorial "This special issue of the Bulletin examines what is new about the debate over radiation risk, specifically focusing on areas of agreement and disagreement.....Today, the scientific and medical establishment of most countries (with the exception of France, where the public strongly supports nuclear power) accepts a default hypothesis on the effects of radiation at doses below the range where epidemiologic data are conclusive. This is the so-called linear non-threshold theory (LNT)"
The scientific jigsaw puzzle: Fitting the pieces of the low-level radiation debate
Lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The most exposed and most vulnerable
Principles in practice: Radiation regulation and the
Unmasking the truth: The science and policy of low-dose ionizing radiation
Abstract "There is scientific consensus on a prevailing hypothesis that, down to near-zero levels, the occurrence of future cancer is proportional to the dose of radiation received. Some experts and professional bodies in the field, however, subscribe to this linear no-threshold (LNT) model in scientific discussions but object to the use of the model for policy-related purposes."
The low-dose phenomenon: How bystander effects, genomic instability, and adaptive responses could transform cancer-risk mod
The social amplification of risk and low-level radiation
The perception gap: Radiation and risk
Underestimating effects: Why causation probabilities need to be replaced in regulation, policy, and the law
Dear Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Editor,
I note your current issue is about the LNT theory. I also note that you avoid any discussion of the elephant in the room - whether there is any evidence whatsoever for this hypothesis, let alone enough to compete with the mass of evidence that it is false.
It is my understanding that anybody calling themselves a scientist must, as a matter of principle, depend on the evidence.
If there is any evidence whatsoever for it I would be obliged if you could confirm what it is & I will, publish it as a reply to this answer. If, as a journal with prime experience in the field, you are unable to do so, this must be taken as proof that there is none.
That evidence, when it appeared, might have shown that the assumption had failed to be consistently conservative. As it happens, the evidence seems to point in the other direction. I'm baffled that anyone would defend what was little more than an ancient guess-cum-rule of thumb as if it were a genuine hypothesis.
Not even 60 years later and with a mass of evidence to to the contrary. Witchfinders have nothing on these parasites.