Really? That very quote says that they reject it &quot;despite population and scientific evidence.&quot;<p>And from further down in the article:<p>&quot;Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.&quot;<p>There&#x27;s a lot of confounding factors that make studying low-level radiation doses hard, including background radiation and the long timelines involved. I&#x27;m perfectly fine regulatory agencies working with an assumption of a LNT model until conclusive proof otherwise is provided. These agencies should be focused on safety and lean conservatively when in doubt. But attempting to call it not a debate is misleading at best.