Geoff Russell - I am interested in the idea that you think yourself some kind of judge and jury on whether or not I am qualified to write.

Leaving that red herring aside, and getting back to the real point - the theme of the article - there is now further evidence that there is increased health risk from low dose ionising radiation.

From Oxford University comes a new report on childhood exposure to gamma radiation, showing increased leukaemia at low levels. The researchers have come at this question from a different angle, and their results contradict the idea that there are no adverse radiation effects, or might even be beneficial effects, at these very low doses and dose rates - ‘What is new in our findings is the direct demonstration that there are radiation effects at these very low doses and dose-rates.’ http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120612.html
The Oxford researchers back up the accepted scientific position of the Linear No Threshold model (LNT) - that there is no level below which ionising radiation is not harmful, risk increases with each added unit of radiation)
Dr Kendall of the Oxford team concludes: ‘The findings are relevant to understanding the risks from low radiation exposures such as medical X-rays and CT scans; planning for the disposal of nuclear waste; and the risks from the exposures received by people living near Chernobyl or Fukushima.' Noel Wauchope

The issue isn't whether radiation can cause cancer. It can. Nobody doubts this. The issue is whether the risks from nuclear are so big that we won't use it in our attempts to prevent climate change.

Do you know anybody who feeds their children sausages? Do you allow them to do so? When the Japanese added red and processed meat to their diets their bowel cancer cases soared. By about 80,000 new cases EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Using LNT, experts expect Fukushima radiation to cause 20 cancers over the next 40 years. Which is more worthy of mounting a campaign over ... something which will cause 80,000*40=3.2 million cancers over the next 40 years or 20? Do you care about cancer or only some cancers?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17059355

With nuclear power, there is less air pollution, less pollution = fewer deaths from respiratory disease and cancer. The number of Japanese lives saved by its nuclear reactors is tough to calculate, but it will be in the many thousands. But you don't seem to care about those lives.

Noel,

If you look I have been spending time on this thread trying to understand the paper itself and its implications, precisely because it is an interesting peer reviewed study.

By simplistic, I mean assuming that this finding is the only relevant piece of work to understanding the impacts of low dose radiation. It isn't. You just chose to rubbish, wholesale, the stuff you don't like. That's why I don't respect you. Because you are biased. The cohort of A bomb survivors is a critical data set, no doubt. But it is not the only one, it is not the only research, and when a statistical conclusion that low doses of radiation are more dangerous that high doses of radiation conflicts with every bit of knowledge in radio-biology, then yes, I query the finding.

It is also simplistic to assume that the impacts of one-off "low" dose 60 years ago, much of which is still rather "high" dose compared to the levels within the exclusion zone, to a population that were in post-war ruin, is somehow comparable or relevant to what people stress about nowadays: tiny increases in background radiation like in the exclusion zone, that will mean a little more radiation over time. As Geoff Russell points out applying the LNT in it's purest form gives a negligible result. You confound these because it suits your message, a bit like confounding completely unrelated nuclear technologies in your previous piece.

I hate to break it to you Noel by from my POV, it's not about you. Your bias is too blatant, your research is too sloppy and one-sided. You've introduced me to an interesting peer reviewed study.

That's all.

Geoff, from your link:

"Guidelines on exposure to low doses of radiation have largely been based on estimated risks from models using data from Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs, where radiation exposures were brief and very much higher. ** As a result, there have been some long-standing uncertainties about the extrapolation of these risks to low radiation doses. **"

Which essentially makes the same point I was.

The article only found a link between radiation and childhood leukemia, not any other form of cancer. Also the article says: "
"That means even if the entire UK population were to move to mid-Wales, fewer than 15 childhood leukaemias per year would be prevented." and:
"The relative risk increase (of childhood leukemia)is likely to lie within a range from 3% to 22% per millisievert."

To put this into perspective, the contamination around Fukushima was about 0.01 to 0.1 millisievert. The Tsunami killed about 20 000.

Shadow Minister: That wasn't from my link, but Noel's. Not that it matters, your points are valid. As in all things, the issue isn't "is this a statistically significant effect", but "how big is this effect"

Ben:" ...when a statistical conclusion that low doses of radiation are more dangerous that high doses of radiation conflicts with every bit of knowledge in radio-biology, then yes, I query the finding"

Yes, so would I. Fortunately, this is not the case. The conclusion was that were was possibly greater risk PER UNIT OF DOSE at lower levels that at higher doses. This is evidenced by the deviation from the linear trend line at lower the lower doses in figure 4 and translates into figure 5 of the report. This doesn't conflict with 'very bit of knowledge in radio-biology' as far as I can tell.

Crisis averted.