Mohan Doss, medical physicist: This article is an introduction and link to two very important websites about low-dose radiation: 1) XLNT and 2) SARI. Everyone interested in low-dose radiation and nuclear medicine should be very familiar with these websites. The modern world depends on their success.
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
Alan Waltar, nuclear engineer, Retired from Senior Advisor, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Professor and Head of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University, Past President of the American Nuclear Society: Conclusions - Linear No-Threshold Low Dose Radiation Guidelines are NOT CONSERVATIVE. The drastic actions forced on the public themselves by LNT (not low dose radiation) cause many needless deaths, make nuclear energy needlessly too expensive, deprive sick people of diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine, and instill false fear among the public of low dose radiation. This has long-lasting negative consequences for the modern world.
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.