Without detracting from these concerns they need to be put in perspective. Mining is inherently bad for respiratory problems including inhalation of coal dust, sharp silica particles, asbestos and poisoning from copper, nickel and lead compounds. When the coal is burned at the power station some metals and radioactive compounds are released to the atmosphere and others find their way into the fly ash used in cement. On radon specifically it is also found in the steam from granite geothermal experiments. Therefore both coal and 'clean' geothermal energy have radioactivity issues. Musty old buildings made from granite blocks must have some radon release.

On the no-threshold theory there seems to be contradictory evidence. For example the better health of granite exposed residents of Colorado compared to those of Florida, albeit compounded by other factors. At this point we have to take the word of one researcher against another. It's not going to stop me handling my tube of yellowcake for example.

Radon, dust etc are all present in underground mining of any mineral. The figure of cancer caused of 1/700 is less that the occurrence of cancer in non smoking, non miners, and is thus impossible to prove.

I suspect that this is more motivated by politics than by health concerns.

I agree with that there is a certain political spin to the article,

"there is insufficient evidence to overturn the no-threshold model but also states that there is "no evidence" of harmful health effects of annual exposures of 1.5-3.5 mSv"

If there was sufficient evidence of harmful health effects from this level of radiation, what could we do about it? As exposure to the earth and atmosphere results in apx. 2.4mSv dose per year, we either have to insulate the earth, or walk around in insulated biosuits.

"It is estimated that around 50 per cent of underground uranium miners in Australia do not use their masks and are thus at greater risk of lung cancer."

Well this is an OH&S issue, unrelated to uranium.

From my experience dealing with radiation in a work environment, uranium miners probably closely monitor their radiation dose and have greater safeguards than miners of other minerals. This argues against the authors mains points in the article and thus one has to ask, why target uranium mining?

I don't doubt that radon gas poses an increased risk of cancer to underground uranium miners. They need to be told of the dangers associated with removal of their face masks and should face the sack if they don't follow the rules. But to use the problems of uranium miners not following guidelines to justify the closure of such mines is the same as saying that we should ban all motor vehicles on our roads since a small proportion of drivers don't follow road rules and some have crashes causing injury or death. If the world as a whole believes that uranium mining and nuclear energy are desirable, then we need to work harder to make sure that miners do not unnecessarily expose themselves to elevated risks of cancer.