Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,704 posts)
8. So? They're saying the same thing I said.
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:45 PM
Mar 2013

LNT is a conservative guess at the risks of very low radiation exposure. There is good reason to believe (and plenty of studies to show) that very low exposure levels actually result in less risk than the LNT model estimates, but they went out of their way to overestimate the risk. Until the LNT dragon is completely slain, these types of analysis necessarily continue to use them... which is fine as long as you state (as they do) that it's a conservative estimate... not a prediction.

If instead of reading the out-of-context enenews post you had actually read the report, you would see that the sentence is preceded by:

The dose estimates and assumptions used in this assessment were deliberately chosen to minimize the possibility of underestimating eventual health risks


IOW... the numbers cited should be the upper bounds of what we might see. The real numbers will very likely be lower.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Report: Infant Girls Expo...»Reply #8