this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
497 points (92.2% liked)
memes
21495 readers
1556 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, LNT is not accurate. It's accurate at high levels of exposure, not not low. In fact, there is growing evidence that low levels of exposure actually have health benefits (this is not saying to go get irradiated, as we don't have enough data).
LNT works under the assumption there is no biological repair mechanism. As you say, we are in a shooting gallery of radiation exposure. If we did have a way to handle low levels of radiation exposure then we wouldn't be alive. LNT causes more harm than it does good, because it causes over-reactions. It's the same reason breast cancer screening isn't recommended below a certain age. At a certain point, prevention does more damage than it helps because what you're preventing is so infrequent that the checks are more harmful than the chance you actually prevent something.
LNT does not assume that there isn't a repair mechanism. It assumes that the repair mechanism has a constant failure rate. That's a pretty good match for the primary biological process involved.
All of the studies I'm aware of looking at lower dose thresholds for radiation occur on timescales and in situations where the benefits of selection due to mutations overrides the negative effects of mutations on cancers. They aren't actually measuring lifetime cancer risk on an organism level. (If a study is talking about comparing sieverts instead of doses of a specific kind of radiation, it's also suspect.)
It's theoretically possible to have a positive effect on an organism level, but that involves much more complicated biological mechanims like immunity and epigenetics which aren't as easily modeled or as well understood. Moreover, they also have the capability of being supra-linear at low rates of DNA damage.
It really isn't a good match. It makes no sense. It does not assume there's a repair mechanism, as it's cumulative over a lifetime. If you include a repair mechanism then exposure rate needs to be included, not all time total exposure. We have models that take this into account and are more accurate at pridicting cancer risk.
I don't know if you even know what you're talking about if you don't know this. Even the Wikipedia page for linear no threshold tells you this in the first paragraph.