The linear non-threshold model is... Quite contested however.
The truth is it's likely a threshold exists, likely under .1 Sv, but its really, really hard to determine becauses at those percentage cancer causes tends to mix up. I think US and German environmental agencies support the non-threshold model as a tool to absolutely reduce radiation contamination in the environment, but I know French doctors (or at least radiologists) think this is bullshit and think the model is both wrong (like all models) and useless in their discipline.
I just checked to be certain I was right, and I am, in fact French doctors rejected the model in 2005, citing a boatload of work on radiation, and also epidemiologic studies (background radiation is more concentrated in areas that have decreased chances of developing cancers apparently, which is weird, but i'm taking a break and do not have time to check out more)
The truth is it's likely a threshold exists, likely under .1 Sv, but its really, really hard to determine becauses at those percentage cancer causes tends to mix up. I think US and German environmental agencies support the non-threshold model as a tool to absolutely reduce radiation contamination in the environment, but I know French doctors (or at least radiologists) think this is bullshit and think the model is both wrong (like all models) and useless in their discipline.
I just checked to be certain I was right, and I am, in fact French doctors rejected the model in 2005, citing a boatload of work on radiation, and also epidemiologic studies (background radiation is more concentrated in areas that have decreased chances of developing cancers apparently, which is weird, but i'm taking a break and do not have time to check out more)