Note that the foundations for these sources have generally limited scientific significance, poor quality dosimetry and analysis, and generally lack confirmatory results from substantial studies on health effects at moderate doses.
Some analyses are mathematically biased to only produce such results.
Such biased analyses often report adverse health effects by assuming a linear dose-response from high doses even though their own data, and studies that could otherwise confirm their results, at low to moderate doses, explicitly contradict the reported results. The government policies and research that are funded and committed to support extreme regulatory policies and radiation protection programs, at high public cost, ignore, and even suppress, the science of biology, medicine, and health, and research on the role of radiation in biological health. These studies fail to support the conclusion that radiation is hazardous at low doses. We seek only to establish that substantial data and bias exist in the committed effort to support costly radiation protection policies, and that the valid data must be independently reviewed, and that independent research be initiated.