“This paper reveals that in Muller’s (1927) Nobel Prize research he used a treatment exposure (total dose) that was 95 million-fold greater than the average background exposure, a value far greater than the 200,000 fold reported by Muller and Mott-Smith (1930).”
“… overpowering influence of low dose biostatistical modeling perspectives that swayed the quantitatively overwhelmed chemical toxicologists. This resulted in the LNT policy going forward, becoming broadly institutionalized across many governmental agencies and in multiple countries. The rest is history.”
Reading “Midnight in Chernobyl,” I came across this…
“This historical evaluation suggests that the EPA did not want to have its hands tied or its scientific image affected by statements from the 1960 BEAR Genetics and Medicine Panels that there was too much uncertainty to estimate cancer risk in the low dose zone. Their comments were simply ignored and swept under the regulatory rug.”
“Thus, it appears that supporting hormesis research does not appear to have been a broad and active strategy by the private sector to influence regulatory processes.” Read the paper.
The guy who saddled the world with the junk science-fueled linear no-threshold model of carcinogenesis was a fraudster — as Ed Calabrese has well documented and JunkScience.com has spotlighted. But science fraud is really only part of Muller’s story. Before science fraud, there was Muller’s idea of eugenics-for-communism.
Continue reading Who was LNT inventor Herman Muller? A lunatic eugenicist-communist.
The Nobel-winning inventor of the LNT model, Hermann Muller, also thought it would be a great idea to have a sperm bank stocked with the sperm of great men like Karl Marx and Lenin. It is no surprise that the LNT turned out to be entirely bogus. Ed Calabrese explains in his latest article.
If you’ve missed Calabrese’s work so far… catch up on the LNT controversy with his latest paper: “The LNT single-hit dose-response model for cancer risk assessment was conceived, formulated, and applied in a manner which is now known to have been scientifically invalid.”
LNT debunked (again) in this new, landmark paper.
Continue reading Japanese atomic bomb survivors live longer, have less cancer
Health physicist Brant Ulsh takes apart the NCRP Commentary 27 claim that the continued use of the LNT for radiation protection is supported by epidemiologic studies.
Continue reading Why can’t there be an objective review of the LNT?
The great Ed Calabrese reviews the Trump EPA’s proposal to do away with the linear nonthreshold model of junk science.
Continue reading Calabrese: Moving Away from the Linear Nonthreshold (LNT) Model of Carcinogenesis
The great Ed Calabrese is sweeping another default assumption of regulatory risk assessment into the ash bin of history.
Continue reading Study: Cancer risk from chemicals, radiation not additive to background risk