top of page
Reasons for the persistence of the LNT model
Listed below are some of the reasons for the persistence of the LNT model and our proposed actions to counter the reasons in order to overcome the LNT model problem
Faulty publications that support the LNT model and faulty peer-review system that allows their publication.
Such publications and the journals that publish them will be called out in our website to draw them to the attention of the public and the press, so that they can bring pressure on the authors and journals to refrain from publishing such articles.
Deficiency in the publication system that enables already discredited publications to be referenced and used without any indication that the publications are not dependable.
This is a systemic deficiency of the current infrastructure, and we will campaign with major journals to institute a system of rating articles for their reliability based on current knowledge, so that clearly flawed publications do not continue to be cited to justify their conclusions.
Poor quality of work by advisory bodies. Reports from most advisory bodies e.g. National Academy of Sciences, ICRP, NCRP, UNSCEAR, IAEA, WHO
ignore publications and evidence contradicting the LNT model
accept faulty publications that support the LNT model
The deficiencies in advisory body reports will be pointed out in our website. New advisory bodies will be formed to generate authoritative reports to counter the current flawed advisory body reports.
Lopsided publicity in popular media to the LNT model supporting publications and advisory body reports (because they are sensational) skews public perception of the state of scientific knowledge
Publications supporting the LNT model receive huge publicity in popular media whereas publications that point out major flaws in such publications receive no publicity
Publications against the LNT model receive no publicity
The press needs to be made aware of the deficiencies of the current system that allows articles with major flaws to be published, and the unenviable record of such publications whose conclusions get discredited sometime later.
Absence of objections from enterprises on whom excessive and unjustified regulations based on the LNT model have been imposed increasing their compliance costs tremendoulsy. These costs ultimately are passed on to the public and so there may not be an incentive for objections to the increased regulations and costs from such enterprises. There may also be concerns about possible reprisals from regulatory agencies for any objections raised.
The enterprises affected by the LNT model based regulations need to be encouraged to join the campaign against the LNT model. The significantly reduced cost of operation from the abandonment of the LNT model would make their products more affordable for poorer segments of the public and for developing countries. Also, the abandonment of the LNT model would decrease potential liability of the enterprises for any employees who have been exposed to low levels of radiation.
Vocal support for the LNT model from the misinformed public and press, and from the vested interests that benefit from the LNT model
Public and the press need to be educated on the invalidity of the LNT model and the validity of radiation hormesis by showing them the evidence. This is the primary mission of the XLNT Foundation.
Inertia - Power of status quo. Those supporting the LNT model are in influential positions in government agencies and academia.
The powerful individuals that support the LNT model need to be challenged to justify the use of the LNT model in view of the evidence.
Professional organizations and regulatory agencies routinely use the LNT model to make their policy recommendations, utilizing advisory body reports as supportive evidence
Professional organizations and regulatory agencies need to be challenged to justify the use of the LNT model in view of the accumulated evidence supporting radiation hormesis and the dissipation of the evidence supporting the LNT model. Legal challenges need to be launched against LNT model based regulations as they do not protect the public from harm but are harmful.
Next Section: Conflict of interest issues
bottom of page