Talk:Linear no-threshold model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This statement: "(i.e. the cancer a study focuses on does not exist in humans, a clear threshold could not be established in humans, the assumptions are seriously flawed)." Makes absolutely NO sense.... someone who knows what they were trying to say should fix it, or it should be removed. Not just the bad grammar, but the entire point here makes no sense. A study advocating the linear model is ignoring evidence that the non-linear thresholded model is incorrect??? Think about it... it doesn't make sense.--Jlc46 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite requested

Article should define the LNT is and say who developed it. Also it should explain policy implications of the model.

Has LNT been applied to hazards other than radiation, such as cyanide in drinking water?

I'd especially like to see any studies which treat LNT as a hypothesis and have made predictions from it. Have any scientists made or tested such predictions? --Uncle Ed 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i think the article mentions that EPA uses this for all carcinogens. Pdbailey 03:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't what I asked. You answered the question, "Does anyone rely on LNT as a guiding principle?" (no longer wondering whether it's true or not). My question was whether anyone is testing the model. (actively trying to determine whether it's true or not).

I guess you mean that the EPA bypassed the stage of determining whether it's true and went right ahead into using it as a guiding principle.--Uncle Ed 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuts

• In this application the question of a threshold does not arise, so this is not strictly the LNTM.

This sentence does not make sense with respect to radiation. If a threshold "does not arise" this is an example of the LNT assumption.

The controversy over LNT is whether the assumption holds true, all the way down to trace doses. This has hugely expensive implications for public policy.

The question is:

• Is there a level of exposure below which it doesn't make sense (moral or even economic) to keep "scrubbing" the environment? Or,
• Is there no level of safe exposure and this does it make moral and economic sense to "keep scrubbing"?

Help me write about the controversy. It relates to the "precautionary principle". --Uncle Ed 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)