Familiar tactic of the nuclear lobby - try to trash the reputation of a respected science commentator (Stephen Starr, Director, University of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program).

UNSCEAR must be taken with a grain of salt, closely liaising with the World Health Organisation. The “WHA 12-40” agreement of 28th May 1959, in practice, puts the WHO and UNSCEAR in a subordinate position to the IAEA.

WHO and UNSCEAR are therefore constrained to carefully not publish anything that would impede the nuclear industry.

Even within that constraint, UNSCEAR's full report does indeed state the danger of ionising radiation to the Fukushima population, particularly to women and children, especially female children.

Hi ChristinaMac,
nice conspiracy theory. Want any science to go with that?

In the meantime, another few phrases of Noel's that seemed particularly dishonest and misleading:

"Muller consistently mixes up "natural" radiation with ionising radiation from nuclear fission."
This sentence is misleading. Natural radiation is often ionising radiation! "Background radiation is the ubiquitous ionizing radiation that people on the planet Earth are exposed to, including natural and artificial sources."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
Being an ex-science teacher, surely Noel knows this? Why write such a misleading sentence?

"He talks about background radiation as "natural"."
It often is! Radon, food, cosmic radiation from space, all give us natural ionising radiation!? Not only this, but the world average natural ionizing radiation is 2.4 mSv, while the world average artificial is only 0.61. Globally our exposure to NATURAL ionizing radiation is about 4 times our exposure to ARTIFICIAL ionizing radiation. Where does Noel acknowledge this? If not, why not?

"There's no mention of the increased ionising radiation in the biosphere as a result of the atomic bomb testing in the 1950s and 60s.""
There WAS mention of it, unless Noel just didn't bother watching all 3 episodes? He even mentioned that our skeletons would be different to that of people buried before the Trinity test. He concluded that every person on earth walks around with some tiny particles of fallout in them. I'm amazed that Noel claims he ignored this? I thought this section was over-wrought.

Is this just the level of dishonesty we are to expect from anti-nuclear activists? George Monbiot was right about Helen Caldicott and other nuclear activists: suspicion of the peer-review process and paranoid conspiracy theories take the place of cold, hard science.

from Noel Wauchope

I did watch all 3 episodes, and took extensive notes.
I thought that the first 2 episodes were terrific.
Now it seems - I must have missed (? forgotten ) that important part, which I suspect, came up in the earlier episodes.

In which case, I made a bad mistake, and I regret it.

As to "natural" ionising radiation versus"background" ionising radiation - well - until the atomic bomb, they were one and the same.
Nuclear fission has added to background radiation. I did not think that Derek Muller paid attention to this fact, in the 3rd episode - more or less implying that it didn't matter if more was addd now, with further nuclear activities.

//Want any science to go with that?//

Yes, he does. But not too much science. You've already seen how dismissive he is of knowledge provided by physicists. Apparently epidemiology is a science, but in Noel's world, physics is in the same boat as astrology and homeopathy: a pseudo-science.

Most people would disagree, especially the physicists (but they're biased). However, many philosophers of science have written on the distinction between science, pseudo-science and non-science, and none to my knowledge share Noel's view that physics is any less worthy as a field of science than epidemiology.

I think epidemiology and physics are both proper sciences, and that they are both worthy of our attention in any reasonable discussion of the health effects of radiation.

//Nuclear fission has added to background radiation.//

Thanks to d!ckheads playing silly buggers with bombs. Boys and their toys. But artificial fission reactions are also important in nuclear power stations and other controlled reactors like the Lucas Heights reactor, and their contribution to average background radiation is sweet F.A.

I'm all in favour of reactors which produce medical isotopes, and I think nuclear power stations are a sensible option in some cases. I've met a lot of people who share my view, and quite a few who are even more in favour nuclear power than myself. I've haven't met any who think that more nuclear bombs or bomb tests are a good idea.

//I did not think that Derek Muller paid attention to this fact, in the 3rd episode - more or less implying that it didn't matter if more was addd now, with further nuclear activities.//

Yes, he did. He pointed out quite clearly that bomb tests have led a significant and measurable increase in the level of background radiation. Does it matter is more is added with further bomb tests? Yes: bomb tests are a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. We shouldn't be building any more of the damn things and we certainly shouldn't be detonating them. We should be dismantling them and recycling their fissile components for civilian uses.

//Nuclear fission has added to background radiation.//
How much extra? What fraction more? 5%? 100% 500% Is it of a different quality to background radiation? Is Noel allowed to get away with insinuating background radiation is not ionising radiation like fission products? What about certain beaches that are *naturally* 500 times background radiation? What about the whole district of Kerala, India? How radioactive is that? What is a fatal does of radiation, and how

Tutt tutt Noel. Without actually letting us know these facts and proportions, for all we know you're hyperventilating about a drop in the ocean! I'd suggest that everyone have a good read of this wiki and do some careful analysis of the numbers. Check that Chernobyl accident! I hardly registers across European averages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

While we're on it, is Noel allowed to get away without quantifying how many peer-reviewed science journals have very serious problems with the 'experts' she quoted? Conspiracy theory thinking on major UN bodies?

As George Monbiot said of Helen Caldicott, that's the same emotional appeal against science that climate contrarians use! It's the very same tactic. "Oh, don't trust that IPCC, they're in cahoots with the climate gravy train."
"Oh, don't trust UNSCEAR, they're in cahoots with the IAEA."