Radiation is certainly part of our everyday lives. Our own sun is a giant nuclear reactor. And it is believed (yet nobody really knows for sure) that the heat produced inside our Earth is generated from nuclear fision. If radiation did not exist, neither would we. We are inexorably linked to it. The irony is overwhelming: that which can kill us keeps us alive. So the only conclusion is: all life on Earth survives a delicate balance. And none of our actions decisions and mistakes should be taken lightly but with the greatest forethought, care and respect.

Me noty understand-de eingish:) We build near unstable fault line...yes yes yes very-good.....ar-so:) We Japan wery smart....lol..... Jokes-aside....( I cant believe I have to spell this out...THE WORLD IS CHANGING! Hello?....If any wanting would-be unclear brain-wave, would just check the currant global data, you would find a worrying trend.

Iam not going to do the work for you, if you have a computer..again CLAP,CLAP...your a winner! Japan would have to be the most stupid nation on the planet, and if not.....I want to know why.

Look! NO Unclear power-plants anywhere near the RIM OF FIRE! Please tell me you know at least that. If not I will put 25 links to the point Iam making.

LEAP

I'm going to assume that you're making a salient point here, 'coz I cannot make head nor tail of the unscientific gibberish which passes for 'facts' in these parts.

The LNT assumption can be reasonable ... up to a point. It’s very hard, often impossible, and always inordinately expensive, to actually measure the health effects of low-level exposure to potentially harmful substances. Experiments involving low-level exposure simply can’t yield statistically significant data unless the number of measurements is unreasonably large. We resort to the LNT hypothesis, without ever actually believing it, because we need to regulate exposure to some potentially harmful substances without actually measuring actual low-level effects. Its advantage is that it’s a very conservative assumption -- the effect of exposure to the substance under study will certainly be over-estimated.

Using the LNT hypothesis to estimate actual deaths, however, is nothing short of brazenly mendacious. In measuring the ‘toxicity’ of a substance, one usually begins by experimental determination of the MD50: the level of exposure at which 50% of the subjects die (or get cancer, or meet whatever other criterion the experimenter has in mind).

The salient illustration is this. Suppose I want to study the toxicity of aspirin. I feed a group of test subjects aspirin, in varying amounts. I might learn that, if I feed 100 people 500 aspirins each, then 50 of them will die. The MD50 for aspirin in my test population, then, is a dose of 500 aspirins.

That’s a lot of aspirins. It doesn’t suggest that taking a couple aspirins for a headache is likely to be fatal ... unless I apply the LNT criterion -- linear effect, and no threshhold. In that case, my research has ‘proved’ that, if I feed 500 test subjects one aspirin each, then one of those subjects will die.

Utter nonsense, of course. Applying the LNT to radiation and announcing tens of thousands of deaths as a consequence is simply dishonest. Unfortunately, the general public is so ill-informed of the facts that cheap tricks like this can succeed ... for a time. Those who promulgate such disinformation should be outed, vehemently, at every turn.

Donkeygod has advanced a valid argument. The aspirin analogy illustrates well the absurdity of applying LNTH to low doses. Technically we have very sensitive radiation detection devices and so can record exposures at levels well below that likely to cause harm to either humans or the environment.

None-the-less for several decades and ongoing is the debate as to the health risks from low level radiation. Below an exposure of 100 mSv there is no clear evidence of a danger to human health. Above this level there is good evidence of a linear relationship between exposure and cancer induction at about 5 extra cases per 100 people (all ages and sex) for an exposure of 1000 mSv. For lower or higher exposures the rate is in arithmetical proportion. Except that much above 1000 mSv deterministic effects are noticed from skin reddening, nausea vomiting , diarrhoea, effects on bone marrow, and central nervous system etc.

Now for convenience and simplicity ICRP has assumed a linear relationship down to zero exposure. Over the years, on this assumption a detailed system of radiation protection and regulation has been established. This system, which is adopted internationally, has proved to be of great value to society. Thus atomic radiation is safely used in such diverse fields from medicine to power generation.

From the beginning there has always been anti-nuclear groups, motivated by radio-phobia or political belief, who claim that the risks are far greater – supra linear hypothesis.

However, there is a strong school of scientist who argue that ICRP is over estimating the risk or at best provides a cautious upper limit for both the public and worker exposures. The reasons for believing risks are less than assumed are based on such observations as hormesis or the adaptive response; DNA repair mechanisms ( admittedly are not perfect for double strand brakes); cell death and elimination of damaged cells by immunological methods.

However, one thing is clear from the Chernobyl affair, the linear no threshold hypothesis of ICRP has a very poor history in predicting the population health effects from low level exposures.

Yeah, the French are one of the most nuclear dependent countries, which begs the question, just what do they do with their nuke waste?

For those too lazy to find out check here:

http://www.chuckmore.com/post/45219142/what-does-france-do-with-its-nuclear-waste

And here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Nuclear Power - one mishap is forever.