The internal review of statistical findings should be more rigorous with large organisations such as DoE and MIT. That alone cautions against small lobby groups of the 'foundation' kind. For example I believe large groups would try to balance the data clustering in the low dose range with more high dose observations.

Then again I go somewhat on small sample sizes; I've owned a tube of uranium oxide (yellowcake) for twenty years and my health is good. Theory disproved.

One thing that you can be 100 PERCENT SURE of is that the powers that be ARE LYING.

These three sites back up what Noel is pointing to, and much much more too.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31401

http://geo-terrorism.blogspot.com.au

The last reference with its associated links may be a bit far out for some - but perhaps far out is exactly what we need to counter the "official" lies/propaganda machine.

A few points -

obviously its not good to get any additional radiation and the surveys of survivors of the atomic bomb atacks are useful, but there are other areas research could look at to properly investigate this field. Firstly, American and Russian sailor work with nuclear reactors all the time, deep under water.. what can be said about their exposure and what affect if might or might not have on their health. However, it is my understanding that barring accidents, they don't get any additional radiation at all so there may be little to learn, but the author may want to check that.

Also, natural radiation varies quite substantially.. up to eight times our background in some Indian provinces. If low dose radiaiton is a problem then those problems should be noticeable in those regions. Then we could look at anyone who has received an X-ray or gone on a international flight. Those all involve small doses of ionising radiation, but then the author is saying that very low doses remain a problem.

then go back and look at the study. Its not looking at people who received low doses but at people who received higher doses and working down the dose-response curve from tha

Noel, the hormesis issue is intellectually fascinating but demonstrably irrelevant to whether nuclear power should be massively increased in a serious effort to prevent climate change.

Consider David Brenner's recent estimate of cancer risks associated with Fukushima in Nature:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/world-health-organization-weighs-in-on-fukushima.html

Brenner isn't an hormesis advocate but a clear supporter of the LNT hypothesis. He calculated that the increased lifetime risk associated with radiation at Fukushima to the ~100,000 people involved was about 1 in 5000. This is ~20 cancers during the next 30 to 40 years. So of the estimated 40,000 normal cancers from things like red and processed meat, alcohol, cigarettes, being fat, being inactive and air pollution.

That estimate of 20 cancers is without any kind of hormesis assumption.

So lets compare the risk from radiation due to a nuclear failure caused by a massive earthquake and a 14 meter tsunami with the risks of lung cancer from living in any city on the planet. Let's pick Australia :)

The lifetime risk of getting lung cancer in Australia is
about 1 in 30 ... with 89 percent due to lung cancer (Cancer in Australia 2001 ... later editions don't give lifetime risks).

So lets assume that only 5 percent of the remaining 11 is due to air pollution (this is conservative, the risk is probably much higher) This gives a lifetime risk of lung cancer from air pollution of about 5 in 3000.

How does 1 in 5000 compare to 5 in 3000? (5/3000)/(1/5000)=8.3.

Ordinary Australian air is about 8 times more likely to give you lung cancer than surviving a 14 meter tsunami but being exposed to
Fukushima radiation. In Japan the situation is a
little different ... there is much more smoking and air pollution can really increase your lung cancer risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21325732

(Part II ... the last!).

Noel, you say the MIT study ignored "internal emitters". Do you understand the term? We all have internal emitters in every cell in our bodies, particularly our brains. Any food with potassium has a fraction of potassium that is radioactive and decays by beta and gamma radiation. We all have potassium in our brains so we all deal with internal emitters in our brains on a daily basis ... and so did the animals in the MIT study ... they were fed and their diet would have had potassium.

Robert Gale has been counselling workers at Fukushima, he estimates their lifetime cancer risk as risen by 0.2 of a percent.

http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/03/12/fukushima-accident-unlikely-to-cause-an-increase-in-cancers/

Who is Gale? He gave bone marrow treatments and treated the 28 workers who died at Chernobyl. He tried to save their lives and treated many of the 500 who were hospitalised. He has his name on 800 research papers, which is 800 more than Helen Caldicott. Keep in mind that there was acute radiation sickness at Chernobyl ... massive doses ... the Chernobyl reactor had no containment building. It was like a car without brakes. In contrast the reactor at Fukushima was brilliantly designed and engineered. Did anything survive that tsunami? The workers on duty owe their lives to working there and can be thankful they weren't installing solar panels on a sea front cottage. The reactors saved more than a few lives. More modern reactors are safer still. They use passive safety features which don't rely on backup pumps working.

Geoff Russell
wow! Good stuff..