To Jimbonic
I was aware of the paper by Ozasa K et al on Radiation Research. The Radiation Effects Foundation which has made an important contribution to our knowledge of the effect of radiation on human health. The RERF has had a major impact on determining the levels of exposure appropriate to workers and members of the public.
The following biological problems remain in using this data to predict the effects of exposure to individuals or even to populations.
• Is a wartime Japanese population subject to a sudden burst of radiation equivalent to any 21st Century population?

• The RERF data, using the updated DS02 system, but not include information on dose rate. It is probable that low dose rates have a different effect compared to the same dose administered as a single blast.

• Populations living in areas with high background radiation do not seem to have higher cancer incidence.

• Since when are biological questions solved by a curve fit program and the R squared test?

I also noted that the 14th Report does not discuss confounding factors. For instance what is the role of H.pylori in stomach cancer, or virus infection in case of leukaemia?

From table 1, I noticed that of children exposed at age 0-9 years at time of the bombing 88% are still alive.

I agree that this is a subject of great controversy and this has been the case for decades. There is a vast literature on the subject for too great for any one person to master. In the final analysis one must exercise scientific judgment.

It is also necessary to form value judgements of the obvious benefits of nuclear energy against the risks of possible theoretical detriment. In some cases the latent period for cancer induction may well exceed the natural lifespan of the exposed individual. My judgement is in favour of the nuclear industry

Bonmot said:

“4th (even 3rd) generation reactors are fine.
In Oz? Yes, but not at this point in time - we're not ready, in more ways than one.”

I agree. That is the reality. We should all face up to it. The main reason we are not ready is that nuclear would be far too expensive in Australia.

Nuclear generated electricity would cost about twice what it costs in USA, four times Korea and much more than our existing electricity. (However, it would cost far less than renewable energy http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ )

The main reason nuclear would be so expensive is labour rates and labour productivity. It takes Australia’s labour 1.35 hours to do what US labour does in 1 hour. And our labour rates are much higher too. Australia’s construction costs are about 60% to 90% higher than in the USA for non controversial facilities like hospitals and airports, and double for controversial facilities like desalination http://www.bca.com.au/Content/99520.aspx . We can only guess what the cost premium might be for nuclear?

Another reason Australia is not ready for nuclear is because we have cheap coal. On a purely rational basis, nuclear will (or should) replace coal where nuclear is cheaper than coal first. If the world had an economically efficient ETS applying uniformly across all countries and including all emissions sources (we don’t and it is probably impossible and won’t happen), Australia would convert from coal to nuclear when nuclear generated electricity is projected to be cheaper than coal over the life of the next plant to be built. On this purely rational basis Australia will be one of the last countries to implement nuclear. [I recognise some will argue from a morals perspective for doing otherwise, but I am referring to just the purely rational argument].

Jimbonic writes in another post:

“AS to Anti green’s statement on deaths from nuclear power. That is similar to stating that only a few people have died from cigarette smoking , for example in a fire started by smoking.”

Come come, it is patently obvious that any activity that humans undertake both voluntarily and by necessity carries a risk of morbidity and mortality. This is true of such mundane tasks as crossing the road, or voluntarily partaking in sporting activities. In the case of stone age man hunting bison.
All forms of power generation including your much beloved wind turbines have detriment. It is just that the historic record is favourable to the nuclear industry.

anti-green writes:
"Since when are biological questions solved by a curve fit program and the R squared test?"

Are you really being serious?

Since, like, ever.

Most toxicological questions are resolved by curve fitting and r squared tests. Pharmacology and toxicology is founded on these types of analyses.

Brush up man.

John Bennetts,

“However, I am afraid that this is another situation where emotional preconception has bitten deep and the wound will take a long time to heal.”

True. Another example, of course, is the massive exaggeration about the consequences of CO2 emissions, and the reprehensible use of scare tactics – continual propaganda about catastrophic consequences – to justify socialist/progressive tax and spend policies which will make not one iota of difference to the climate or sea levels.

Bugsy

Of course you are correct and practical decisions can be made from statistical models.

Equally a correlation does not prove causation. The biological mechanisms for cancer induction are complex. Several non- linear multiple mechanisms may be involved in the process. Some factors will be promoting while others will inhibiting the neoplastic process. I have in minds such factors as cell repair, apoptosis, immune surveillance, bystander effects, hormesis, and so on.

To return to your post a linear or linear quadratic model are easy to understand and apply to practical situations. While introducing a threshold into radiation protection regulations would be an entirely new ball game. It will be difficult to establish an agreed threshold level. Further it is very likely that any threshold will vary between individuals as well as different tissues.

I am not complaining about the application of LNTH to regulation. I am very critical of the application of LNTH to predicting the consequences of accidental and unintended radiation exposure.