Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan
If a Pro/Con advocate claims a single one sided picture of the entire zone .. such as a pro advocate who might claim 'no evidence of any harm' .. that is incorrect or at best inaccurate .. equally so , as a con advocate who might claim it's a 'dead-zone'... Both extremes are at best inaccurate .. if not flat out wrong...
|
Which is pretty much where I am - with the realization that a) the cons get a lot more press by using scare tactics; and b) even when they're trying to be honest, they're basing all their estimates on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model which is fundamentally flawed.
This model states that if a high dose of something causes X amount of problems, then 1/10 that dose causes 1/10 the problems, and so on down to homeopathic levels. But AFAIK nothing in biology actually works like that. If you measure the LD50 dosage of something (the amount at which 50% of the recipients die), giving 1/10 that dose doesn't kill 5% of recipients. You can even point to many instances, from Vitamin D to water & oxygen, where a small amount is beneficial or even necessary for life, but too much will kill.