This article makes some good points but is missing a lot of the larger context. It doesn't use this phrase, but the topic it discusses is called the linear no-threshold (LNT) model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

The relevant sub-field of physics that studies the effects of radiation is called health physics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_physics

Whether and how to replace the LNT model is one of the most controversial topics in health physics. The most basic modification to the model is to assign a threshold, but for that we need better research to establish a threshold for various circumstances. In the US, the Department of Energy started a research program to study low doses of radiation in 1999:

https://www.science.org/content/article/us-lawmakers-looking...

This was cancelled in 2016 and later revived in 2021:

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2021/academies-panel-consider-future...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552793/

https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26434/chapter/3

The US agency that regulates radioactive emissions, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), still uses the LNT. The NRC is a conservative agency (in the sense of being averse to change) and they are required by law to regulate for protection of the public. They won't change regulations if there is no consensus on what to replace LNT with. They were petitioned to change it in 2015 and rejected the petition in 2021:

https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/62/11/17N

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/17/2021-17...

A majority of adults in the US now favor nuclear power, so there is some basis for cautious optimism of continued research and potential regulatory changes in this area:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/16/support-f...

https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/B78A069C-1866-DAAC-99FB-DF480282D...