How much difference does this make, in practical terms? I'm not sure
it's all that significant.
If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold
below which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is
no "medical threshold".
As an analogy which may help to clarify this, consider that /there is no
threshold for automobile accidents/. No matter how slowly everyone is
forced to drive, there will /still/ be accidents. Fatalities presumably
have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at,
and reducing that speed will /always/ save lives. But that doesn't lead
to the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to
zero and force everyone to walk, because /it is a tradeoff/. _Nothing_
in life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need
to do is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small
relative to other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.
In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still
an /economic/ threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to
PANIC!" crowd refuses to see it.
On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:
Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation
On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker
buster” salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.
On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of
radiation. They assert that radiation protection regulations should
continue using a linear, no threshold model.
The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has
been gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no
permanent damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a
modest health improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates.
They believe that the LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job
of protecting people from harm.
(more at link)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation
