tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post7840920266149379206..comments2021-08-18T04:01:38.227-07:00Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post-47278773080821910162015-11-10T06:15:56.111-08:002015-11-10T06:15:56.111-08:00LN(t) I will let some readers respond to your BS name dropping drivelStockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04516118374677265589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post-74555503663488431952015-11-09T21:36:11.992-08:002015-11-09T21:36:11.992-08:00I dont buy it and neither does the established scientific community. If you believe supra linear for low doses then you drank the antinuclear junk science koolaid pal. Im looking at a lot of sources, Harvard, AFRRI, CDC. You cant rely on epidemiology so much at low low doses because the uncertainty washes out any spikes. Its called a regression analysis for a reason. Sternglass found that out the hard way. Sorry, no sale.Loose Nukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14225475544660127189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post-62172930660025774582015-11-09T13:04:59.233-08:002015-11-09T13:04:59.233-08:00No I base my ideas on broad based epidemiological studies, some with over 300,000 persons. I admit LNT is flawed. <br /><br />Basing cancer risk on 2 nuclear bomb event in a very unique culture, over 70 years ago is pretty much plain stupid. Most radiation is going to have a supra linear curve, for LNT understates the danger.Stockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04516118374677265589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post-71747198143511128002015-11-09T12:40:22.966-08:002015-11-09T12:40:22.966-08:00Im sorry but you base your supposition on flawed LNT to estimate cancer deaths. I&#39;m providing pushback from these ludicrous assertions.Loose Nukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14225475544660127189noreply@blogger.com