The LNT Report

#1 New Release in Nuclear Engineering 

In May 2025, President Trump issued his executive orders greenlighting nuclear power and identifying something called “LNT” as a flawed theory not grounded in science. Suddenly, many thousands of people wanted to know “What the hell is LNT? And why, after all these years, should it be abandoned?” 

This new book by Mike Conley gives the answers to these questions. It’s the first book for the general reader on this important topic. LNT (“Linear No-Threshold”) is the hypothesis that any amount of nuclear radiation, no matter how tiny, does some harm, and the only safe dose of radiation is zero. This hypothesis is provably false, and yet it has dominated nuclear policy since the 1940s, holding back the development of the safest, most efficient, and cleanest form of energy generation. 

The LNT Report: How Bad Science Made the World Afraid of Nuclear Power is a fascinating detective story, uncovering the history of the LNT dogma, showing how it finally came to be exposed and debunked as bad science (BS). Careless assumptions, panicky post-Hiroshima emotions, careerist bad faith, and the financial interests of fossil-fuel titans all played a part. The result was the domination of public discussion by a false conclusion: radiation is risky in any quantity, no matter how low the dose. 

In 1927, Professor Hermann Muller published a paper asserting the LNT hypothesis, though providing no evidence for it. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for this paper in 1946, despite the fact that the evidence he had gathered since 1927 was deeply flawed and the hypothesis itself dubious. In the years that followed, Muller and his supporters employed all available means to cover up the deficiencies in LNT, even to the point of suppressing contrary evidence. 

The hero of this detective story is the outstanding scientific authority in the field, Professor Edward J. Calabrese, who traced the LNT hypothesis from its inception up to recent years. Calabrese looked at every available detail of the discussion, even including the private correspondence of Muller and others, and showed how, at every step, wrong assumptions and unsound experimental techniques were employed to save LNT from public refutation, and to save Muller’s Nobel Prize from being scandalously discredited. 

The truth, finally...