"Cigarettes were ok, nobody died on the day of smoking them. Now we know differently. We are told 18,000 cigarette related deaths occur in Australia annually."

The thing is smokers are more likely to die of certain types of cancers than non-smokers.

Nuclear power has been around for around 60 years but is not universally distributed. If nuclear plants were in fact having the effect you suggest Australia should have one of the lowest cancer rates in the developed world. We have one small research/medical reactor in Sydney with a large geographic distribution of population.

There is plenty of material on line about cancer rates around the world. Feel free to demonstrate a correlation between nuclear facilities and cancer rates in the population. Again Australia with little nuclear infrastructure should have a massively lower cancer rate than countries with a large number of reactors if there is a yet to be admitted impact on cancer rates.

R0bert

Passive smoking takes place in the same room or the next table. Radiation circulates in air currents and animal life around the world. There is animal migration. Imported food is also a likely source of whatever. Some countries export their low quality or expired date food to other unsuspecting countries. Then there is gross ignorance of the marine environment, especially the food web. It looks to me like there may be very serious impact and consequences for the marine food web from what is going on at Fukushima. The whole situation is NOT showing in the following:

http://blog.asrltd.com/home/2011/4/5/fukushima-daiichi-radioactive-seawater-model-april-5.html