No, the alternative is to use real data, rather than fabricate fraudulent data to fit the LNT model.
Namely, you need to look at the actual shape of the dose-response curve in the real world, instead of externally imposing a certain predetermined shape by fiat and fudging data to fit.
Here's one of the relevant timestamps from the talk, which runs on into Part 3.[0] However if I'm being honest, this talk is impossible to capture in a short clip suitable for modern attention spans. My apologies.
To keep from getting lost, one really should watch the whole thing before formulating the next counterpoint. Otherwise this will devolve into a very long and boring comment thread, where I laboriously digest the points from the video and feed them to you through an HN comment-sized straw. ;)
This is why the NRC recently rejected a call to stop using LNT in setting regulations. Their responses to the details of the petitions are pretty damning.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
Now, at the very low doses typical of large scale exposure from nuclear accidents, it's true that the evidence does not directly require LNT. That's because the effect predicted by LNT is so small at those doses that it's swamped by noise and unmodelled biases. No practically obtainable data could do the trick.
But note what this means: the data at those low doses is so poor that it's consistent with an effect greater than from LNT. It cannot rule this out.
I'll add that a favorite pseudoscientific claim from the radiation apologists, radiation hormesis, would imply a larger effect from radiation at low doses than predicted by LNT. That's because hormesis putatively acts by inducing repair mechanisms above some dose, bending the curve downward. Below that putative threshold, the curve has a high slope (and thus more damage per increment of dose) than the linear curve of the LNT.
This matches exactly what the presenter says: LNT makes great policy. It's just bad science, which the NRC demonstrates here by immediately throwing the LNT under the bus when questioned.
The NRC is literally calling LNT an "assumption" here. How much more of a hint do you need?
>The 1991 final rule explained that the NRC based its radiation protection regulations upon three assumptions. The first assumption concerned the use of the LNT model, which was described as follows:
>The first assumption, the linear nonthreshold dose-effect relationship, implies that the potential health risk is proportional to the dose received and that there is an incremental health risk associated with even very small doses
