From the outset, Safecast has hoped that our data would prove useful to researchers and decision makers as well as to the general public. As time has passed the number of academic papers that examines the Safecast project and the data it has produced has steadily increased, which is something we welcome. Some of these papers have been well-done and helpful, while others have fallen short. We’ve taken the unusual step of formulating a detailed rebuttal of “Calibration of Safecast dose rate measurements,” by Guido Cervone and Carolynne Hultquist, in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Volumes 190–191, October 2018, Pages 51-65. We think the paper is flawed and is based on several crucial misunderstandings. We’ve posted our critique on the Safecast Discussion, and a direct link to the thread can be found here. This way others can join in on what we hope will become a productive discussion with wider implications both radiation measurement in general and citizen science in particular. The Safecast Discussion is open for anyone to read, but it’s necessary to sign up in order to post comments.