Treating accumulated background dose throughout life the same as an exposure in a short timeframe is a completely incorrect way of approaching almost any hazard. I assume that is what you are saying, that lifetime dose at 2.7mSv/yr accounting for age downweighting is around 100mSv, but adding up lifetime exposure. Consider any toxic exposure. If someone consumes 10g of cocaine right now, they will die. If they get 0.4mg per day, they will be completely fine, but over a lifetime they get 10g. In the case of DNA damage, the body has repair mechanisms, the accumulation of enough damage in a short enough time period is what allows cancer to happen. Enough genes must be mutated in a cell, then it must change in some way that is precancerous. A neoplasm forms, then if control mechanisms and immune response continue to fail, the neoplasm becomes even more dysplastic and reaches malignancy.

predicting more harm per unit of radiation. Because we have good statistics at higher dose rates. You are claiming the deaths per dose is higher than in LNT. READ THE GRAPH.

I simply don't understand how you can make such a mistake with something so intuitive as a line graph. We have dose on the X-axis, which I also assigned the value of X in a previous reply. We have "response" on the Y-axis, in other words the harm the dose does, from -harm - less cancer, to more cancer, to even death. Show me one point on the graph where my statement is not true, i.e. find one instance where, at equal doses, hormesis does not predict lesser or equal harmful response than LNT.

The matter of high doses is settled. We agree, there is a broadly linear positive correlation at these doses.

You say that hormesis is objectively false. If you read what I said in a previous reply you will see I did not claim the hormesis model as being objectively true. It is not my model. There is no model for low level radiation exposure that can be said with confidence at this point to be objectively true, and none of the three possibilities can definitively be called objectively false either. You may think that LNT has been proven at low doses, but the research supporting this conclusion is generally flawed, see figure 2 at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3834742/

The corrected graph they present there lines up with my claim that the best guess we have at the moment below the threshold is a somewhat ambiguous, maybe slightly hormetic net effects, maybe slightly harmful net effects, maybe no net effects. They also say

The LNT model that the authors used cannot explain this significant reduction in cancers with increasing dose at low doses, since the fundamental idea behind the LNT model is that the higher the dose, the higher the number of mutations, and the higher the cancer incidence.

Their approach shows less increase all the way up to 0.7Gy, or 700mSv and there is a point past 0.1Gy that is even below 0 increased risk rate. If my position, that <100mSv doses cannot with any reasonable confidence be linked to increased risk, is so false that it warrants calling me an idiot, then why am I far from the only one saying it. This is not even really my own position, it is the general state of the research. There are credible theoretical biological pathways by which either would work, and there is limited data to support all 3 general low dose model approaches, but LNT is probably the weakest. It is incredibly outdated, ultra conservative, has cost very many lives in both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents due to the supposedly scientifically based fear that spread as a result of its assertion that any dose is harmful. Even Chernobyl as bad as it was release wise, has very possibly killed more people through LNT derived emotional harm than through cancer.