Edward Calabrese, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst: This introduction is by John D Dunn, MD. The National Academy of Science research project on effects of radiation refused to review and include the research that showed that Japanese atomic bomb survivors did not suffer mutations -- in other words, the Linear No Threshold (LNT) claims about radiation caused mutations were not just wrong, they were based on previous fraudulent fruit fly research by Muller that hid faulty findings and bad methods. Muller got his Nobel and took off on his project to promote Linear No Threshold radiation biophysics while suppressing the evidence that he was wrong. Muller had a chance to wave his Nobel and influence a decade of radiation biophysics and then, to make it worse, general toxicology with his goofy LNT song and dance. The National Academy of Science committees were complicit in the deception.
Andrew Montford, Deputy Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, GWPF, UK: The linear no-threshold (LNT) model applies to the harms caused by nuclear radiation. The LNT model encapsulates the idea that there is no safe level of radiation exposure, no threshold below which exposure is not a problem. It is therefore the cause of all extraordinary levels of bureaucracy and safety measures that have all but killed off the nuclear industry in much of the western world. The evidence that the LNT model is hopelessly wrong, and that we have been lied to for nearly a century, is now overwhelming. It is surely time for the government to commission a complete review of the question of radiation safety.
John Dunn, MD, JD: The historical basis for the no threshold claims in matters of radiation biophysics was not scientifically valid and a thorough investigation by Dr. Calabrese creates a serious question of ideology driving scientific claims rather than good evidence and reliable science. The idea that radiation or any other toxin or harmful substance has no threshold for effect as a cause of cancer ignores the evidence. The widespread acceptance of linear no threshold toxicity/oncology has created a risk management protocol that is irrational and unscientific. It does not serve the public well. Source from https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LNT-conference-short-Abstract-edited-July-28-2018.pdf
Darrell Fisher, nuclear engineering scientist (medical physics, health physics): The ICRP set the public dose limit too low at 1 mSv/year. Science does not support the need for a public dose limit below 5 mSv/year, either on the basis of epidmiology or radiation biology. The high cost of regulatory compliance to tax-payers and commercial entities is prohibitive.