Or there is this report by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission which discusses the various models and concludes that it has adopted the LNT model as the most conservative.
Or there is this presentation by Fergus Coakley MD, Professor of Radiology and Urology pointing out what is wrong with the LNT. As he points out it is the difference between shooting fish in a barrel (one shot one dead fish) and speed in a car. 60 mph is not twices as unsafe as 30mph, but much higher because there is first, 4 time the energy to dissipate, and second there are thresh-holds.
But most of that is all in the realm of "opinion" even if formulated by experts.
Here is a genuine scholarly article by researchers at NIH on the issue The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data
That is what a proper scientific research article looks like for the education of anyone actually seduced by your blather.
You have to remember that the nuke industry is married to the government and when people were citing data from Hiroshima proving LNT, “someone” gained authority to scramble the cohorts (exposures) and their actual position in the data permanently erased. No scientific mind did that.
Read John Goffman for a thorough discussion of how political pressure is brought to bear upon the unpleasant truth behind radiation from the point of it’s discovery - he was there. Goffman was the “Father of Plutonium”. He helped discover it and was a medical doctor who studied cancer himself. He details how data is scrambled to serve the nuke lobby and how there is nothing the nuke industry won’t do to silence critics.
But if you read the data BEFORE someone responds by scrubbing it, read your links and the BEIRS, and international studies and reports (e.g., Ukraine) like “The Consequences of Chernobyl” by The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Alexey V. YABLOKOV
Vassily B. NESTERENKO
Alexey V. NESTERENKO
coNsultiNG editor Janette d. sherman-Nevinger
VOLUME 1181
then you will understand that it isn’t as safe as nuke industry apologists say it is.
Oh you may have trouble finding that last report I mentioned though. Last time I looked for that report, it was extremely hard to find compared with its original availability. People kept citing it and we can’t have that, can we? Apparently the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences is, after all, susceptible to political pressure.