Apologies Geoff, I meant to address Jimbo.

Your link shows how other externalities present at the time could have a far greater effect.

As I said, intuitively the assumption that radiation is never good for your makes sense, and in the absence of any information a linear model is the most likely. This study shows no proof as it relies on extrapolation to reach the conclusion rather than analysis.

@Bugsy You've clarified what I meant using a greater number of words, but this is fundamentally my point. Greater risk per unit dose at lower doses... this would turn some radio-biology assumptions on their head. But yes, forgive my obvious hyperbole.

But my point is there is no crisis from this finding in the first place, though I do think the paper is interesting. A bit like the IPCC with climate change, one must consider the total body of quality research on an issue to determine the state of knowledge. This author has no interest in this type of approach. The statistical finding of this study does not undo or invalidate knowledge from other types of studies and streams of knowledge, like radio-biology, it adds to it. This is not a direct scientific study of the effects of radiation on humans or other living things, it is a large scale work of correlation. That's doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Of course it does. But it does mean it's not everything.

But it's Geoff Russell who is really talking sense here. Making global energy decisions based on this information would be like freaking out about a paper cut when someone has just chopped your leg off.

Ben, assumptions are always meant to be confirmed or overturned, as they are made in the absence of knowledge. Hyperbole indeed, as "every bit of knowledge" morphs into "some assumptions". Still, I'm not sure whether 'turned on their head' is warranted. Which assumptions would these be?

You of all people should not be indulging in 'obvious hyperbole', you are trying to convince people to take up nuclear power. Hyperbole is what you are supposed to accuse your opponents of.

@Bugsy Assumptions, which are treated rather more as knowledge, that healthy cells have extensive repair mechanisms to deal with damage either from radiation or other sources. That provided the amount of damage at any give period of time is not too much, that it will most likely all be taken care of. But when the rate of damage is too great, the defence mechanisms may be overwhelmed, repair or cell suicide may not take place, and bad cells may remain to go on and form cancer. Breast cancer researchers recently filmed these processes in action. On this knowledge, treatment aims for the lowest inadvertent dose to healthy cells possible. It does not seeks some optimum low dose that takes into account an upswing in risk per unit dose at low levels. This would be in conflict with the process outlined. Additional tiny dose is really just business as usual at the cellular level according to this body of knowledge.

Two simple quotes from breast cancer research on this:

"Over time, the radiation damages cells that are in the path of its beam — normal cells as well as cancer cells. But radiation affects cancer cells more than normal cells. Cancer cells are very busy growing and multiplying — 2 activities that can be slowed or stopped by radiation damage. And because cancer cells are less organized than healthy cells, it's harder for them to repair the damage done by radiation. So cancer cells are more easily destroyed by radiation, while healthy, normal cells are better able to repair themselves and survive the treatment."

Then in the real lay language:
"“Cancer cell growth is unwieldy and uncontrolled—these cells just don't have their act together like normal cells do. When normal cells are damaged by radiation, they are like a big city with a fire and police department and trained emergency squads to come and 'put out the fire.' Damaged cancer cells are more like a disorganized mob with a bucket. "

CONT

CONT But again, these inadvertent doses to healthy cells are absolutely enormous (e.g. as much as 30 Gy over a month of treatment. The low dose range in the study? 0.005 Gy, 6,000 times smaller) compared to the "long term low dose" that we are being asked to worry about from Fukushima. But the human body copes. Cancer treatment specialists would dismiss this minuscule level of risk entirely.

Those quotes were from breastcancer.org. Hardly Wauchope's evil empire. A responsible opinion piece would have taken the new paper, contextualised it with other knowledge and given readers some realistic appreciation of just what it is we are talking about and what type of energy decision we might make as a result.

That does not appear to be Wauchope's agenda.

Have to echo Geoff again; difference between statistically significant and actually significant.

Sorry Ben, but what you are talking about is in no way in conflict with the conclusions of the study. What you are describing is largely irrelevant to what we are actually talking about.

Cancer specialists would certainly be balancing the risks involved in inadvertent irradiation with the risks of leaving the cancer to grow in the body. The doses described would be in 'larger dose' category, of which are much better known.

What is study has actually shown quite clearly is how cancer and radiation damage is a stochastic process, large doses become deterministic, but the variance increases the lower the dose you get.

I would take issue with Shadow Ministers assertion that it extrapolates from the higher dose range to find the conclusions, which it quite clearly does not.

You may argue that the relative risks are so low as to not have to worry about them, that's fine. But there is no basis to argue that the conclusions are wrong in that their statistics are in error or that they are in conflict with everything we know or assume about radio-biology. They aren't.