I'm working on a major rewrite. Considering how much work this article needs, I'm not making all of the changes at once. There are three major issues: 1) The overall organization is awful. The sections are overlapping, repetitive, irrelevant, etc., 2) The description of the position of various scientific organizations is quite outdated and, 3) in addition to describing the position of major organizations, the article is peppered (in no organized manner) with references to individual research studies. This is a complex scientific issue, random wikipedia editors do not have the time or expertise to adjudicate hundreds of research studies. The article should primarily be relying on the opinion of major research organizations. On that note, I'm focusing on #2 first. I've made significant edits to describe the updated positions of the various organizations. In general they agree that LNT has the most evidence, or is at least not inconsistent with the evidence and that no other dose-response model has more evidence. Accordingly, I've removed the "Support" vs. "Opposed" framing and added a summary of what is/is not agreed on (they mostly support LNT though some caution against estimating health risks at low doses). Now that that's done, I suggest largely removing the numerous references to individual studies, probably including almost the entire "Fieldwork" section and the first few paragraphs of the "Controversy" section. It could be reasonable to leave a few of the major studies that are driving epidemiological research, but that would be a fair bit of effort and is not at all what's there now. I guess I'll hold of on that for now and give others a chance to weigh in on my recent edits first.wagsbags (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've made another major edit. I removed a lot of repetitive statements and continued refocusing the article on statements made by major scientific organizations, rather than authors of individual studies. In that vein, I removed the entire "Fieldwork" section. It included an overwhelming array of various individual studies, with no particular focus on the major ones. If we really want to reference individual studies, which I do not think is a good idea for a topic this complicated, we should be pointing to one of the overview reports from a major scientific organization that has reviewed such studies. Also that would probably be better placed in the "radiation-induced cancer" page.wagsbags (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Didn't fancy getting involved in a likely edit war, but the UN - specifically UNSCEAR - have now confirmed that LNT has no scientific basis. Article needs significant changes to reflect this final nail in LNT's coffin. 92.238.128.94 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The link to the article is dead (reference 6). Any update available? Bacillus subtilis (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

the actual UNSCEAR report's text disagrees. "In fact, results from observations and experiments accumulating during the 20th century lead to the gradual realisation (a paradigm shift) that the risk of radiation induced cancer is directly proportional to the dose without a dose threshold." 0¹⁸ (talk)

or "All UNSCEAR reports published since 1994 on effects and mechanisms of low doses very consistently state that, overall, no data exist that question the validity of LNT. On the contrary, analysis of DNA damage and response suggest that its activation by radiation follows a linear dose response." (same link)0¹⁸ (talk)

There are two straw man hypothesis that are only placed in the article to make it seem that some people believe that LNT is an underestimate. Nobody believes that. The link is to a hypothetical scenerio that is not supported by any studies, and is not held by any serious researcher. To put it in the same paragraph as radiation hormesis just makes LNT look like a safe middle ground, a place which it does not occupy. LNT is the extreme upper limit on low-level radiation damage in the literature, and should not be made to look like a middle of the road estimate.

The second unsupported claim is that "some cancers might respond linearly while others might not". This is also unsupported by any studies, and is unreferenced in the article, and is probably wrong given the current state of knowledge of cancer biology. All cancers, in current understanding, have a certain threshold of mutation damage that are required to defeat apoptosis, and it is likely that the response to radiation damage is very similar across groups. While it is possible that this is false, it should not be stated, because it is also a straw-man position designed to make LNT look better than it is.

This is why I removed the statements. Here they are for future reference:

1. Other alternatives include those in which response to radiation increase more than linearly at low doses or that the LNT model underestimates risk at low radiation exposure. In the later hypothetical case, below a certain threshold the subtle damage caused maybe missed and not repaired by the body, leading to a greater risk of disease then indicated by the LNT model.^[1]
2. It is also possible that some cancers respond linearly while others do not.

[unsigned] Uhm, isn't the first of the statements you removed a plausible consequence of hormesis? The response to low level exposure could reasonably be larger than the LNT model would estimate BECAUSE the exposure was below a threshold needed to activate cellular repair mechanisms? Obviously, if that were so, then the LNT model would already be broken, since LNT implicitly rejects the notion of a damage-activated repair mechanism. (Or so it seems to me.) Above this hypothetical activation level, the LNT model would over-estimate the risk, but there might still be a region at the far low end of exposure (below the repair activation threshold) where it would give an under-estimate? --76.102.148.93 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

LNT is the extreme upper limit in the literature.

How can a rate be an upper limit? Doesn't it depend on the coefficient? When I compare Ax to Bx², I can't come to a conclusion without knowing A, B and the range of x you're interested in. 129.132.209.62 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

It is the upper limit in the literature because it assumes absolutely any dose of ionizing radiation contributes additively to harmful mutation, while it is plausible that extremely low dosages contribute not at all. It predicts the highest risk in this sense. You could suppose that there is some greater than 1 multiplier for extremely low dosages (such that one thousand 1μSv exposures have the effect of a single 5mSv exposure), but I don't think you will find it taken seriously in the literature. nakomaru (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

At this point, I do not want to participate in the discussion whether the LNT-model is valid. The article does not give any numbers for the risk of cancer involved with any particular equivalent dose. Is it 0.5% deaths per 100mSv or 1% deaths per 100mSv?--Hokanomono ✉ 09:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Per radiation-induced cancer, which references ICRP Publication 103, it is 0.5% per 100mSv. nakomaru (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

This article is extremely biased against the linear no-threshold model, which is the model endorsed by mainstream consensus.

As it stands, almost every paragraph of this article grudgingly acknowledges that the LNT model even exists, followed by extensive debunking of it using a combination of primary research, Wall Street Journal interviews, and basically any old quote from a small-fry not-for-profit org that doesn't like LNT.

If a regular person read this article they would walk away not properly informed about the reputation of LNT.

Note that the minoritarian effort to get LNT overturned continues to be rejected by the authorities. This Wikipedia article sounds like it was written by the petitioners in this case.

Our article even includes an entire section devoted to one of the cornerstones of the anti-LNT position: that the psychological effects of radiation fear are riskier than low-dose radiation exposure.

It is difficult to assume good faith with such persistent bias against LNT in the article. -- Hunan201p (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I don't see extreme bias in the article. I see haphazard organization. There is no clearly written passage which outlines the case for or against LNT. Mostly it reads like WP:OR.

I'd rather hear about the major agencies that have taken a position and what activities or substances they're regulating, along with any research they've done to confirm or contradict their theoretical stance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

A recent edit mentions that the US should proclaim to the world that background radiation causes increased cancer and that "Amazon sales of lead lined clothing would skyrocket." This seems like a personal opinion that should be removed from this article. 66.74.95.161 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

From the lead: "Scientific organizations generally support use of the LNT model ..." Really !? Maybe we should change this to "Government organizations ..." It seems to me that the battle is between scientists that want to abandon LNT, and government organizations that want to keep it.
Here are two scientific organizations that say LNT is bunk:
HPS https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html
SARI X-LNT https://www.x-lnt.org/evidence-for-radiation-hormesis
The videos from Health Physics Society explore the reasons why governments have clung to LNT.
The X-LNT website, sponsored by the Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, has summaries of 7 studies supporting radiation hormesis. I find section 7 to be the most convincing. "Lung cancer rates decrease with increasing residential radon levels". There is just no other way to interpret this data.
I'm searching for any good data that contradicts this conclusion. Simple science is more convincing than an author's credentials or the prestige of a publication. Here is a plot from the European Code, but I can't find the source of the data:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2081763568746983/posts/3726936500896340?comment_id=3728618867394770
David MacQuigg 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes really. I updated the controversy section with the latest positions of the major scientific organizations, not just government agencies. The edits are inconsistent with those positions. The phrase "many scientists 'now' dispute..." is used to try to make it seem like more evidence is coming out against LNT. That is not the case. In fact, HPS' and ANS' positions seems to have softened over the years, with the uncertainty now noted as below background rather than around 5 rem. The HPS position does not say the LNT is "bunk" which is pretty biased language. I've never heard of SARI X-LNT but they appear to be a tiny organization of a few random people that really doesn't belong in the same conversation as international bodies of dozens of experts in the field. Regardless, they don't seem to have convinced the experts in the field. I'll not weigh in on the facebook reference.
wagsbags (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This controversy reminds me of the debate over Einstein's theory of relativity. When confronted by a reporter with 100 papers disproving his theory, Einstein responded - Why 100? One would be enough. I am disappointed that you won't focus on the data I suggested, and continue to push the "latest positions" of organizations supporting LNT. Did you look at the latest from the Health Physics Society (linked above)? The quote from the Health Physics Society in your "updated controversy section" has only their vague statement from 2019 about "statistical uncertainties". Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty in trying to disprove a very small effect (radiation induced cancer) in a large background (cancers from other causes), yet that is exactly what the Cohen study shows (one of the seven studies summarized on the X-LNT website). Don't tell me they are a "tiny organization" or label them as "random people". Read their summary and tell me what is wrong with it. Simple science is more convincing than an author's credentials or the prestige of a publication.

Sorry about that link to the discussion on FaceBook. You have to scroll through it to find that plot from the European Code. Here is a better link to a summary of this radon controversy, showing both plots and what I believe are the best arguments from both sides. https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide#LNT_and_radon,_Controversy_over_Figure_4

This talk page is not the right place for ongoing discussion. That is the role of the FaceBook forum. Please join me there for further discussion.
David MacQuigg 15:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Macquigg: please review WP:MEDRS. The sources you're presenting here are not usable. VQuakr (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

HPS is the same source cited earlier in this article to support LNT. I have simply cited a later publication from that same source.

X-LNT.org provides a summary of seven studies, each with citations to reliable sources.
David MacQuigg 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

X-LNT is synthesizing a non-peer reviewed position not supported by those studies. It is not a meta analysis and not a reliable source for medical claims. HPS in its current usage in the article is on history of LNT and an WP:ABOUTSELF citation to the HPS's own position. It is not usable for a claim that the LNT is discredited in general. For below ~100 mSv, the state of the field remains "we don't know, so we use a conservative model." VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Eric Hall gave an invited talk at HPS (the Talor lecture) that showed linearity down to 100 mRem for an unborn child. That takes it down to 1 mSv for an important population. 0¹⁸ (talk)

Bowing out I don't have the time or inclination to debate Wikipedia rules. If anyone is interested in resolving this controversy by discussing the science, I recommend the (spam removed) ongoing at Citizendium.
David MacQuigg 18:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia's rules are that we follow what Reliable Sources say, and that means that if the consensus in Reliable Sources is factually wrong, than it should appear as factually wrong in Wikipedia until the consensus in RS's changes. Though some of us may have the background to interpret data and studies, that is not the job of Wikipedia editors: that is specifically banned here: WP:NOR, with good reason: as anonymous editors, we don't know whether anyone's claimed expertise is valid and how that compares to the claimed expertise of other editors. Many times experts with equal qualifications/experience disagree, and when that happens, we REPORT ON the disagreement, we don't adjudicate it.

I need to review the edits to the article, but I agree that it was a mess and could use improvement. Meta-analyses are better than single studies.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

this edit claims that it's undoing edits per WP:SPS which claims, "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by WP:SPS, independent publications."

there are three organizations comments being deleted here. Lets go through the text in a more granular fashion. I claim these are not self publications:

1) The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements is not a "personal blog" (what WP:SPS wants to prevent in its own words) but is instead a notable organization. you can look at the presidents to see a list of really notable individuals who are all published in this area. This organization a congressional charter.

2) the Union of Concerned Scientists with membership of 200,000 scientists is also not operating a "personal blog"

3) the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is, in fact, a journal founded by none other than Albert Einstein. If this journal is self published, Wikipedia is in trouble.

None of these are "independent publications." Each organization having a wikipedia page indicates they are notable. But they are also notable organizations. I'm restoring the edit. 0¹⁸ (talk) 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The deleted statement was sourced to an article in the Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists, an anti-nuclear advocacy group; not an org known for publishing solid unbiased science. Using their OPINIONs here is WP:PROMOTIONAL of their position.

Note that at WP:RSP there are almost no think-tanks or advocacy groups listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); they'll never publish research with findings contrary to their policy position; using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in proper balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for or against; it doesn't matter what political lean they have, this is true for conservative as well as liberal think-tanks and advocacy groups. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists seems to have been accepted at WP:RSP here [1]. However, I do not think the linked article supports the body text, so I'll instead propose we quote them, "If federal radiation limits are gutted in the manner urged by the president, the new standard could allow four out of five people exposed over a 70-year lifetime to develop a cancer they would not otherwise get." and cite it to the linked article which is secondary media. 0¹⁸ (talk)

1) At RSP, one editor saying that BAS is acceptable does not a consensus make; my take on that discussion is that no conculsion was reached generally about the reliablilty of BAS, nor consensus on the inclusion/not of the content being discussed.

2) I would think we could find a standard journalistic source to say that there are groups who oppose Trump's rule changes and name the groups opposed and their positions, rather than the website of the advocacy groups themselves. A good journalistic source would also name organizations that support the changes; so the journalist would be the one deciding what the proper WP:DUE balance would be of opponents vs. supporter's statements.

The current article text makes no statements regarding the theorized effects of these regulatory changes, it only says: "These changes were proposed to ease the licensing requirements on new nuclear power plants in the United States." ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 02:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• C-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages