But Daffy, you're still here, and still able to point to irrelevant images, and fictional films. Actually the film Avatar is interesting in that the Na'vi were uninterested in understanding their world or in any of the human party tricks such as being able to make, walking, talking copies of the themselves remotely controlled by humans.. And that trick was forced on them because the Na'vi were so arrogant and intolerant of anything new that they would not deal directly with humans.

I amused myself an essay on how really the Na'vi were to blame for the events on Pandora on www.vaderisinnocent.com if you ever get a chance to look.

I swear, Daffy, if you didn't already exist it would be necessary to invent you. Are you seriously putting an animated film about blue-skinned people forward as evidence that we're all do-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-med?

Since when has ultraviolet been categorised as "Ionising Radiation". I was under the impression that a much shorter wavelength was indicated.

David

This article is itself bogus science. . The author baldly states that “Modern scientific experiments establish beyond doubt that moderate doses of radiation do no harm. “
We’re supposed to believe that. Presumably, we are supposed to dismiss:
the findings of:
1. ‘Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases’
2.Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) V11 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
3. Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami - World Health Organisation Report 2013

These are the 3 largest, most reputable reports on health effects of ionising radiation. All conclude that low dose radiation is harmful, and causes cancer.

As to the 1987 Goiânia medical radiation accident, (cited as evidence of no harm from lower dose radiation) - it hasn't been properly studied, and would certainly need longer than 25 years proper follow up to get meaningful results.

Perhaps the author of this article does not grasp the difference between a small individual risk from low level radiation, and the collective population risk, which is significant

>>These are the 3 largest, most reputable reports on health effects of ionising radiation. All conclude that low dose radiation is harmful, and causes cancer.<<

Maybe it does Noel but there is no way to avoid it. You'll cop a higher dose of radiation from an in international flight or a diet rich in potassium than you will from living next to nuclear power station for a year - people still fly and eat brazil nuts because if there are any risks from the tiny doses involved those risks are negligible and of less concern than more dangerous carcinogens like alcohol.

Do you drink Noel?

Cheers,

Tony

Noel,

If you actually read the report, the studies you cited looked at very high doses of radiation and extrapolated to lower levels.

There is no study yet of low doses of radiation and their effects that concurs with their conclusions.