@Shadow Minister

Considering that an annual dosage from background radiation is in the order of 0.0024 Gy, 0.1 Gy is a lifetime's dose, which firstly I see as as stretching the definition of "low".

Wholeheartedly agree, and Wauchopes conclusion fails to take into account the issue of getting it all at once, or getting it over a period of time, which of course matters a great deal.

"Most of the results are of much higher doses".

Disagree, Table 9. The two lowest dose groups are easily the biggest. Response?

"Secondly, most of the deaths below 0.1 Gy is due to non cancer related issues and given the post war conditions I find the inclusion of these into the studies as dubious."

Agreed, along with the absence of any actual mechanism by which radiation contributes to these conditions, this is clearly more correlation with the overall event than caused by radiation IMO. Infectious disease? That's just silly.

"This generally gives a signature result of a preponderance of thyroid cancer, which is notably absent in this research." A very good point.

"Finally, the results from the area around Chernobyl do not show a significant increase in cancer other than thyroid." Correct

"For example the prefecture of Fukushima has received levels of between 0.0001 to 0.001 Gy with one village adjacent (evacuated) has received a maximum of 0.05 Gy and wonder what part of this research would be valid here". Well contextualised.

Look, I agree with you overall, this author has no interest in any finding other than one that supports a pre-determined position. Her rubbishing of other's work is simple disgraceful, but clearly typical of her. There is indeed a great deal that works against these simplistic findings. My interest in looking more closely though was just the fact that is does, oddly enough, run linear and they do seem to have a large sample at levels for example 0.005Gy that bears a result. But it needs balanced commentary, not Wauchope's blatant activism. Why don't you rebutt?

The two lowest dose groups are easily the biggest. Response

ref table 3, these are mostly non cancer related deaths. Mostly probably related to reduced immune response. This could also be due to lack of nutrition, sanitation etc. In a city that has been nuked, I doubt that it was business as usual.

While the connection has been drawn between high levels of radiation and cancer, and logic would dictate that low levels of radiation are not good for you, the proof is not in this study. That is being used by anti nuke activists to raise alarm about dosages that are a tiny fraction of an annual background dose carries no weight whatsoever.

@Shadow Minister Most deaths, yes, but as per Table 9 the cancer deaths looks to have been enough to generate a result in those groups.

". That is being used by anti nuke activists to raise alarm about dosages that are a tiny fraction of an annual background dose carries no weight whatsoever."

Oh yes, in this I concur. Just trying to bounce of you to interpret the actual paper.

Oh dear oh dear! Out come all these worthy, presumably pro nuclear, commentators, with their quick condemnation of the significance of this 14th huge report, done over 62 years by many scientists - Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 2012 Report 14, 1950 2003: An Overview of Cancer and Non- cancer Diseases.

I am amused that Ben Heard considers that these "simplistic findings" and conclusions reached by the report are MY conclusions;
"This landmark study of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Japan presents the strongest evidence to date that cancer risk not only exists at low levels of radiation, but may have greater risk per unit of dose than at higher doses. The study also shows that ionising radiation is associated with non cancerous diseases. Involving circulatory respiratory and digestive systems "

And even more amused to learn from Cohenite that I arrived at them by "channeling Helen Caldicott"

And Geoff Russell asks if I "understand internal emitters" . well, I do, but he doesn't seem to. Does he think that because we have potassium in our bodies, that somehow that makes it OK to add in radioactive isotopes like caesium?

One must wonder at the low level of knowledge of these critics who resort to disparaging one little writer, who has simply drawn attention to a huge, comprehensive and very important report.
Noel Wauchope

Jimbo,

A basic qualification in statics will tell you two things:

1 statistics based on a range of data can reveal information on that data range only. Extending the "findings" beyond this is pure conjecture.

2 external factors that can contribute to the results need to be eliminated. For example for the lowest doses = about 20 years background radiation exposure, the change in deaths from disease (non cancerous) was 0.3% If this does not ring alarm bells then nothing will.

Your statement that low dose radiation may be responsible for these "excess deaths" is true, but based on these statistics, it equally may not.

Noel, can you please demonstrate your knowledge of the difference between Cs-137 decays and K-40 decays and tell me why 100 Bq of one is worse than 100 Bq of the other?

Have you seen pictures of Cs-137 shredding DNA in a cell? Have you seen pictures of casein (milk protein) shredding DNA in a cell? How do you tell the difference?

Please, these aren't rhetorical questions. I'm interested in your answers.