The public is repeatedly told: “There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation” (e.g, BEIR-VII). Yet, the NRC Chairman, said: “The public needs to understand there is such a thing as harmless exposure.”

The public is repeatedly told that Collective Dose cannot be used to predict health effects (NCRP-121). Yet Collective Dose is used to “predict’ deaths from various scenarios and evaluate plant performance.

This disconnect between policy and science causes public confusion and loss of credibility, leading to increasing demands to resolve the issue. This document lays out the relevant scientific facts and issues needed to do this.

This document has no figures and little data. It describes and explains the evidence, but the evidence itself is the dozens of research papers for which links and citations are given, each of which has further references. This is the evidence that has been ignored up to now. The report is organized as follows:

1. The Research Reports - The biological processes that characterize the interaction of radiation with living organisms have been extensively researched and are well defined. Example reports are given. [PDF - 3 pages]

2. Data Exclusion - Documentation that the vast body of credible, peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that low-dose radiation is not harmful is repeatedly excluded from policy-setting reports. [PDF - 3 pages]

3. Statistical Challenge – Response to the claim that statistically valid epidemiological dose-response data in the low-dose range would require impractically large populations. [PDF - 5 pages]

6. The Complication Argument – Response to the argument that departing from LNT would somehow complicate radiation protection procedures and equipment. [PDF - 1 page]

7. Bad Science Used to Support LNT –In addition to omitting relevant research data from the data base, the documents used to support the LNT are seriously flawed. Some egregious examples are discussed. [PDF - 4 pages]

8. Policies recommend LNT - While stating that science does not support these decisions. Examples are given of conflicting statements in important policy documents. [PDF - 3 pages]