So what is UNSCEAR's figure for "cancer deaths among large populations exposed to very low level excess radiation over a long period" ?

If it is zero, how is that less erroneous, being subject to "unacceptable uncertainties", than the 30000-60000 figure?

On the other hand, if (as I imagine is much more likely), UNSCEAR simply hasn't given a figure for "cancer deaths among large populations exposed to very low level excess radiation over a long period" (whether because of the uncertainties involved or for any other reason) then the whole article is worthless.

Total collective radiation exposure from Chernobyl fallout is estimated by the IAEA at 600,000 Sieverts. Ben Heard would have you believe that the death toll from this collective dose was zero. For those of us who prefer mainstream science, we can simple apply a standard risk estimate for low-level radiation exposure from the International Commission on Radiological Protection to estimate the Chernobyl death toll at 30,000 to 60,000. Likewise, the IAEA/WHO use this approach to estimate the death toll in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union at 9000. So Ben is implicitly accusing staunchly pro-nuclear bodies like the IAEA of being part of a dishonest anti-nuclear conspiracy. Ben's post is either hopelessly confused anti-science, or it is dishonest.

Helen Caldicott has responded at:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

Caldicott claims that the death toll is 980,000, and anything less than that is unscientific. Would be interested in Jim's and Ben's response to that.

Jim, I am, quite simply, stunned. You can try to hang this on me if you want, but my article is little more than a very straightforward and accurate discussion of UNSCEAR's findings on this issue. Accurately representing their findings is something you manifestly failed to do; in fact you worked very hard to twist them to your own ends.

As you know, or should know, the standard risk estimate for low level dose, over long periods, over large numbers of people, has no basis in observed evidence (as clearly explained by UNSCEAR) but is rather an extrapolation of what is known about high level dose, over short periods, over small numbers of people (which is indeed hazardous, and is based in observed evidence). In going from one to the other, it gets less and less representative of what actually happens in the real world, and more and more abstract. Lest anyone (hi jeremy, i have read you comment too) be put off by the 179 page UNSCEAR report, the main section is 24 pages. Just read it. See how much liberty Jim has taken with this report to get his estimate. And jeremy the short answer to your question was in my article: whatever level there is, it would be so small as to be undetectable against the noise of all the other health risks, radiological and otherwise, that make up normal life. Jim, your perspective and methodologies on the death toll are your business. But there is no excuse for bastardising the findings of this report so badly to suit your purposes. Just represent it accurately first, and then disagree with reasons given second, and people will be able to make up their minds in a fair way.

Ben you are siding with fringe scientists in arguing that low-level radiation is harmless. The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is against you. For example a US National Academy of Sciences panel, the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR), comprehensively reviewed the evidence and concluded in its 2006 report: "The Committee judges that the balance of evidence from epidemiologic, animal and mechanistic studies tend to favor a simple proportionate relationship at low doses between radiation dose and cancer risk. ... [T]he risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and ... the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."

Ben
- what do you know that the BEIR Ccommittee doesn't?
- the IAEA/WHO estimate of 9000 Chernobyl deaths in the most contaminated are - are they part of an anti-nuclear conspiracy?