[omgJustTest]

I think that in this case it is definitely a case of analytic-cotorsion.

There is _heated_ and mostly opinionated debate about the low-dose regime. Briefly some people believe low-doses of radiation have a threshold (that one could get a certain amount before having excess cancer risk), there is "no-threshold" meaning relative risk = 1 and dose = 0, and there are people who say that some radiation is good for us because it stimulates our repair mechanisms and kills weak cells.

All of this heated debate brings us to the currently misunderstood findings, and is why the author's say over-and-over that the linear model is a good fit.

People, specifically the regulators and the nuclear industry, make a _bunch_ of health decisions on excess risk based on Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) models because they believe it is conservative.

The main issue here is that in order to get good statistics, you have to irradiate people, and the two best datasets prior to today are Hiroshima survivors and the small number of low-dose exposures. People are torturing this analysis to resolve the debate, which in my opinion only feeds it.