It doesn't actually matter whether the "Low dose no threshold" theory is right or wrong because it has no bearing on whether nuclear power should be used in our efforts to avoid dangerous climate change.

Latest estimates are that the summer of 2003 and that of 2010 killed 70,000 in Europe and 55,000 in Russia respectively ... and even those numbers are tiny compared to the impacts on hunger and malnutrition which are emerging because of the impacts of a changing climate on the food supply. Renewables like solar thermal and wind are great gadgets, nice little toys, useful niche products, but they simply don't cut it as an answer to powering the planet. And we need to power the planet. Really. And I'm not talking about the developed world, but power to the 3 billion who still cook with wood and cattle dung. Climate change requires reforestation and deep cuts in the 1.4 billion cattle on the planet so we need serious power. If rich smart countries like Denmark and Germany can't make renewables work, what hope anywhere else?

The Chernobyl disaster has had a big impact on nuclear designs, just like the odd collapsing bridge or tunnel informed engineering in following decades, but the total nuclear safety record is far and away better than that of any other serious contender for a power supply system ... regardless of whether 48 or 48,000 died.

Part of the reason there is debate about possible carcinogenic effects of small doses of radiation is that any impacts are dwarfed by the real carcinogens that determine the bulk of the planets cancer load. Even Caldicotts million over a few decades is tiny compared to the ravages of tobacco, alcohol and red meat. Worrying about nuclear dangers when we face huge climate change certainties is like a smoker worrying about the risks of choking on an olive.

In one report on the IAEA's reports they stated (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf)

"Childhood thyroid cancer caused by radioactive iodine fallout is one of the main health impacts of the accident. Doses to the thyroid received in the first few months after the accident were particularly high in those who were children at the time and drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine. By 2002, more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake.

Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations."

The UNSCEAR report (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html) says "Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, and some indication of an increased leukaemia and cataract incidence among the workers, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the exposed populations. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to the actual radiation doses."

It seems like most of the actual harm to those living near Chernobyl was and is caused by the fear campaigns of anti-nuclear campaigners rather than radiation.

R0bert

Geoff I agree with you.

I see though that anti-whatever environmentalism is an occupation, and is not disturbed in the least by contrary evidence or logic.

If the nuclear "debate" were to end tomorrow, would these folks go and get normal everyday mundane jobs, no they would move on to the next "activist" role.

It's like asking, for example, what would the gun toting types in the Gaza strip do if Israel went to peace tomorrow and seceded to all the Palestinian demands, do you think they would stop being terrorists, no that's their occupation. They would just go terrorize someone else or go back to killing each other.

Like those people, caldicott and the other "demanders" (I picked that up somewhere recently, it was in reference to Tax Demanders, no longer protesters) who want this and that and everything else their way and no negotiation.

Like the idiots yesterday, who demanded Victoria's new power station be canceled because "they don't like it" - talk about an age of self obsessed entitlement.

We'll eventually get tired of these self important types who demand society do what they personally wish, to the point of stopping all progress, and they will then be the "ignored".

Jim,

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. While the IAEA using similar studies predicted about 9000 deaths, the actual results from the highly contaminated areas including several million people was that the mortality from cancer in the population was lower than previously recorded, and the same as a control area in a non contaminated area.

Given the existing radiation back ground and the plethora of other cancer causing agents such as chemicals, viruses, etc, the LNT model has very few case studies with which to work, and whilst they show more radiation causes more cancer, the linearity is assumed rather than empirically demonstrated. (I read the report)

To quote: "The committee recognises that its risk estimates become more uncertain at very low doses."

Given that ratio between high and low range estimate at 0.1SV (relatively high dose) was 140%, the estimate of the relationship at low levels is extremely tenuous, and has a precautionary basis.

The only way of proving this theory is to observe the results from large population groups, and so far the evidence does not support the theory.

Jim,

That is a transparent attempt to distract and dodge. I am sorry, but I am not biting. My article was a critique of your article Risk and Radiation, specifically your (mis)use of the UNSCEAR report to justify your methodology and provide credibility to your findings. Since you seem determined to acknowledge nothing at all, I will have to spell it out with some questions of my own before attending to your comment.

1. You claim to better represent UNSCEAR than did Wade Allison. In point of fact, your conclusions relating to human health impacts could not be further from those of UNSCEAR. Did you a) not read the report or b) read the report, extract the paragraph that suited you, and deliberately ignore the actual findings?

2. It is not just your findings that UNSCEAR disagrees with. Your methdology of theorectical modelling for harm at low levels of radiation is a)blamed for ongoing misunderstanding of the health impacts of Chernobyl (page 56, paragraph 37) b)described as lacking any conclusive observational evidence to support it (page 64, paragraph 95) c) highlighted for its high levels of uncertainty (page 64 paragraph 97), with a conclusion that any such harm that may occur would be so small as to be "below the limit of detection" (pg 64, 97). Have you not read these points in the report? Or have you chosen to ignore them and persist with the notion that the UNSCEAR report somehow supports your methodology?

3. Beyond it's lack of rigour, the fear of future harm from Chernobyl that your methodology helps to foster is blamed, in part, for ongoing harm that is very definately present: depression and anxiety leading to risk taking behaviour. This is significant enough to receive separate discussion in the report (page 58-59, paragraphs 45 and 46). Do you make any response to this?

As for you comment:
- Am I clear in understanding that UNSCEAR are now "fringe scientists"? For their report is the only reference I have drawn on, and my representation of their findings has been accurate and sourced to the paragraph.

-Regarding your quote that "the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in cancer risk to humans". This information would not be lost on UNSCEAR. But they sensibly chose to rely on actual studies rather than theoretical projections.

- If you wish to use BEIR IAEA/WHO as the basis of your findings, then please submit a new article. Until then, please answer your critic on this one.

- Is 9,000 fatalities the new figure you wish to stand behind? Perhaps a revised article is required.

- The modelling methodology has, so far in this discussion, provided estimates of 9,000, 30,000, 60,000 and possibly 900,000 deaths (courtesy of Caldicott). Meanwhile the peak body says 15, and anything extra would be too small to notice. I very much stand behind my article as representative of the best work that has been done on this topic.

- I neither stated nor inferred a conspiracy. I am critiquing a stand alone piece of work. You are the author of that piece. My criticism is simple, to the point, and referenced. Please respond.