Fairfax and Aunty ABC both picked up the Bloomberg article which commented, inaccurately, on work due to be published today by researchers at Stanford University. Unfortunately, the death estimate which appears in the Stanford press release was multiplied by 10 by Bloomberg to make a headline with impact.

The Stanford quote is :
"Radiation from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster may eventually cause approximately 130 deaths and 180 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford researchers have calculated.

The estimates have large uncertainty ranges, but contrast with previous claims that the radioactive release would likely cause no severe health effects.

The numbers are in addition to the roughly 600 deaths caused by the evacuation of the area surrounding the nuclear plant directly after the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and meltdown."

In response to Michael's concern about Pu238, this may or may not be present and, if so, only in very small quantities. Check Wikipedia or other sources. The half-life is 87.7 years and it is indeed an alpha emitter. Michael has provided no estimate of the probable exposure levels to Pu, so I suggest that he should heed his own advice about St Monbiot, re the lack of value of a person's opinion in the absense of analysis and data. St Michael has provided neither data nor analysis regarding Pu 239 and Pu239 to support his subjective opinion.

The ABC's article is at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-18./fukushima-radiation-may-kill-1300-people/4137366

I advised the ABC in writing of its error yesterday afternoon. The article is still displayed on their website without amendment or further comment or response to me. Our ABC has been sucked in by an incorrect headline.

Interesting article, and good point made by one poster, illuminating the difference and effects, between alpha and gamma radiation.
People living in Scotland have for centuries been exposed to high levels of background radiation. Due to buildings that are mainly composed of granite, which given the thorium content, lifts the levels of radiation and exposure.
It seems to have done the Scots nae harrrum?
We can produce all the domestic gas and hot water we will ever need, simply by processing all the biological waste we produce, in onsite smell free digesters.
The methane can then be stored in simple bladders and then fed into modern ceramic fuel cells to produce on demand power.
There's also older thorium reactors, discontinued in the 70's, because there was no weapons spin-off?
Unlike oxide reactors, which consume just 3.5 kilograms out of every 100, thorium reactors use up over 90% of their liquidised fuel, with the little waste produced, being vastly less toxic and eminently suitable, for very long life lithium beryllium fluorine, space batteries.
Wave power also supplies overnight and or very dependable power.
Sodium storage ponds seem to be suitable for storing solar thermal power, making solar thermal part of the available alternatives.
We're told that our hot rocks could supply all the power we'd ever need for at least a century.
The private developers seem to be stalling or milking their projects for all the govt subsidies they can; given this seemingly endless source of multi million dollar funding, will indubitably dry up, once the project(s) prove(s) commercial?
If we would prove hot racks as a reliable power source? We need more than just govt dollars, but govt pilot projects as well!
Besides, govt supplied power, provided at virtual cost, invariably is one third or less of, greed is good, fully privatised power?
And that's what we need to keep costs down and the competition honest, as we transition to a carbon free or carbon neutral economy!
Rhrosty.

I write in support of the article by John Ridd. There can be no direct evidence in either support or refute the LNTH. This is because the effect, if any is well below the limits of statistical and therefore epidemiological detectability.

There are sound biological reasons for thinking that any dose response curve below say 50-100 mSv exposure is very unlikely to be linear. I note some of the possible biological mechanisms which may act in either direction, most likely towards minimising the risk of low exposure:

• DNA repair especially for single strand brakes, but less exact for double stand or cluster I write in support of the article by Mr Ridd. Clearly there is no, and never will be direct evidence for brakes.

• Apoptosis or programmed cell death. (Dead cells cannot become malignant!)

• Bystander (cell) effects.

• Hormesis or radiation adaptive mechanisms.

SO WHY RETAIN LNTH IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?

• It provides a workable and practical framework for legislation and insurance claims.

• It is not possible to set an agreed threshold. In fact a threshold may vary for different populations and different body tissues. As an example the thyroid tissue of young children maybe more sensitive to radiation, while that of adults much more resistant.

• The limits set for workers and the public and guidelines for medical diagnostic radiation exposure do not inhibit any legitimate task and compliance is not difficult for trained workers.

• The consequences of uncontrolled radiation by untrained and unqualified users may be catastrophic. Example skin burns to patients from inexpert use of cardiac fluoroscopy, or misuse of industrial radiation gauges.

On the other hand predictions of numbers of cancers and deaths based on “collective dose” and the LNTH are likely to be grossly exaggerated if not meaningless.

Allow me to make the prediction that without accidental or even diagnostic medical radiation exposure there will in the fullness of time be 100% mortality in all human populations, and about a quarter to a third of these deaths will be due to non-radiation induced cancer.

I apologise for the poor format of my last post. I seemed to have great difficukty with "cut and paste."

Thanks for all your accusations JohnBennetts. If you read my previous comment carefully you will see that I made no assertions about current levels of plutonium release at Fukushima. Your calls for me to provide more data are just another example of the constant attempts to accuse me of statements I have not made a la Cheryl or Curmudgeon.

Preston et al take one view of Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 2012 Report 14, 1950 2003: An Overview of Cancer and Non- cancer Diseases. It is not the only view. Ian Goddard's review of the study comments:

"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" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VAncqK6bl0&feature=share

Ian Goddard’s analysis of the report includes these points : The study examines linearity and non linearity in the response to low dose radiation, that is whether or not the accepted scientific consensus of linearity holds good that there is no safe low dose of radiation, and that the risk of cancer increases with increased dose. It confirms that there is no threshold below which radiation doses are harmless, and continues to affirm the linear dose response.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reviewed the study, and concluded "There is no longer a convenient excuse to avoid using the LNT to estimate consequences from real or projected releases of radioactive materials, even when the dose of concern is below 0.1 Sv." http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/13.full
Sure the UNSCEAR report is cautious - UNSCEAR, will publish a report in May 2013 that aims to give an analysis of radiation dosages among citizens and forecast health risks in the coming decades
In the meantime, it is commonsense to at least play safe, and be guided by the accepted principle that there is no level below which ionising radiation is safe.
And - that conclusion has been reinforced very recently by Oxford University's research on gamma radiation and leukaemia in children: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120612.html