Ben Heard,"It is the dose and dose rate,not the source that increases harm."

If you looked at the link by JF Aus to Arnie Gunderson's http://fairewinds.com/ you have to come to terms with "hot particles" that mimic compounds in our bodies,thus are assimilated by our bodies as being normal.They gnaw away at our genetic integrity over a long period of time,causing caners and genetic deformities.

Children are the most suseptable since their cells divide more rapidly.

The nuclear industry needs a huge wake up call since they have become indolent and unaccountable.

As I've stated previously,the way forward is nuclear fusion and far better technology.Private eneterprise via this oligarchical system has perverted our Govts.Fukushima is another enormous cover up that is still spewing radiation into our environment.3 reactors have gone into meltdown.They cannot contain or control it.

I would not be eating fish coming from anywhere near Japan for a long time.

You can cross this one off your list of things to worry about, Arjay.

>>...you have to come to terms with "hot particles" that mimic compounds in our bodies,thus are assimilated by our bodies as being normal.They gnaw away at our genetic integrity over a long period of time,causing caners and genetic deformities<<

Ben Heard is right about the dose rate.

"It has been suggested that spatially non-uniform radiation exposures, such as those from small radioactive particles ('hot particles'), may be very much more carcinogenic than when the same amount of energy is deposited uniformly throughout a tissue volume. This review provides a brief summary of in vivo and in vitro experimental findings, and human epidemiology data, which can be used to evaluate the veracity of this suggestion. Overall, this supports the contrary view and indicates that average dose, as advocated by the ICRP, is likely to provide a reasonable estimate of carcinogenic risk (within a factor of ~ ±3)."

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/23/1/301

Similar conclusion here, too.

"On the specific issue of risks from local ‘hot’ particle alpha irradiation of tissues, animal studies of chromosomal aberrations and cancer in liver after ‘hot’ particle irradiation suggest that effects can be related to average tissue dose (Brooks et al, 1974, 1983; Barcellos-Hoff and Brooks, 2001; see Annex 2D)"

http://www.cerrie.org/pdfs/cerrie_report_e-book.pdf

Put it this way. When you have peer-reviewed, well-referenced scientific reports on the one hand, and wild-eyed unsubstantiated scaremongering speculations posted to YouTube on the other, I know which I consider more reliable.

So pericles,using your logic the IPCC is 100% correct about C02 causing catastrophic global warming which we have yet to experience.

It is the financial system that wants the taxes and ETS to screw us even more.It is the Nuclear Industry which is heavily subsidised by the tax payer again,that does not want to be held accountable.

Here again you reference consensus science that has a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

So Arjay won't accept UNSCEAR's or WHO's reports on the effects of radiation, won't accept the IPCC's reports on climate change, and thinks carbon taxes are designed to "screw us".

I don't think anything else needs to be said...

@ Ben Heard,
(my previous post continued here. Delay due post limit)

Dust also concerns me.
Consider this. Two years ago a tree trunk snapped while I was on a ladder and I took the the fall on my front upper chest. Ambulance to hospital led to xray that revealed a 10 cent sized spot on my lower right lung. Cancer was suspected. Tests allover did not show cancer anywhere else. Good cardio-thorasic surgeon Brady chopped off that lower lobe. Lab study revealed 3 things, it was cancer, early stage, no further treatment.
My point is I am still alive and there is no sign the disease still in my body. I think the source was cut out with the cancer, but did the lab see a catalyst? I don't think so.
I thoiught my mobile phone carried in a belt-pouch could have been the aggravating factor. But I now think a particle of toxic whatever may have been the cause.
I deal with toxic algae, including Lyngbya cyanobacteria known to cause asthma-like attack on contact with human skin. Imagine a toxic particle of Lyngbya caught inside a lung.
Algae dries on beaches and is blown by wind.
Wind blows heavy sand to form huge sand islands in waters where major Lyngbya blooms have occurred, still occurring.
Imagine consequences from a particle of caesium in household dust.
Tissue of breasts and prostate glands and other organs have a great deal of blood/water come and go.
Dust falls in to dams. I think a micro particle of toxic algae or caesium could be carried in water from dams into household water supply and into a human body.
Surely there are precautions that can be taken. Surely there are some solutions.
Or are we all too tough, stubborn or bigoted to consider and debate and find solutions to it all?
Thanks Ben for answering my question/s.

Tom Keen if you believe the global warming rubbish caused by CO2 then you will believe anything.