Why Jaworowski is quoted on the LaRouche web site I do not know? I can assure you I have no time for the LaRouche cult. Jaworowski has of course published articles in other forums. In any case, his politics is not pertinent to this discussion.

None-the less Jaworowski observations of the “Linear No Threshold Hypothesis” in radiation protection is pertinent. I can assure you not all the critics of LNTH or for that matter Greenhouse are right wing fanatics, or members of bizarre cults. The literature debate regarding LNTH has been heated for more then thirty years. As yet, the protagonists show no sign of agreement.

There are regulatory arguments in favour of LNTH. For instance a number of concepts used in radiation protection such as; justification, optimisation (ALAR), dose equivalent and so on depend on LNTH.

On the other hand at low doses, considered in BEIR VII to be less then 100mSv, there are several non linear biological processes that work in either direction, so as to cause a departure from linearity. The magnitude and direction of these effects is as yet not clearly defined. I list here; the adaptive response, apoptosis, various cellular DNA repair mechanisms, problems in correcting double chain brakes, by-stander effects, genomic instability and so on.

However, there is general agreement that at low level any carcinogenic effect from radiation will be slight and undetectable by epidemiology. Further any prediction of number of cases based on LNTH co-efficient will be so lacking in precision as to be exceedingly rubbery. A former chairman of ICRP* has commented that the A bomb survivor studies only have the power to detect risk of LET radiation down to 50-100mGy.

My view is that if the LNTH is used to make predictions of radiation detriment, authors should quote 95% confidence limits, and explain all the errors in their methodology and assumptions.

*Clarke R. Control of low level radiation exposure: time for a change? J Radiol Prot 1999; 19:107-115.

AG, before I posted I just did a web search on Jaworowski. I was interested in his credentials. His expertise obviously lies in radiation, rather than climate change, but his poorly-researched foray into climatology damages his credibility (in my view). Until a couple of years ago I was a climate change sceptic, but the evidence seems pretty overwhelming now (sorry this is bit off topic). With genuine climatologists who disbelieve climate change now more-or-less extinct http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html , any scientist who supports the other side (no matter what their specialisation) can get a hearing; a bit like the Intelligent Design "controversy". Jaworowski got a resounding rasberry for his climatology paper.

Having stumbled across the LaRouche connection I thought it was amusing, in a surreal kind of way. The article begins "Two eminent experts, Zbigniew Jaworowski and Michael Waligórski, discuss", which suggests it was written for LaRouche. I could be wrong, no offence intended.

As you rightly point out re radiation and the LNT hypothesis "the protagonists show no sign of agreement". I think I'll avoid a holiday in the Ukraine until the jury is in, or delay it 200 years if LNTH wins the day.

A HOLIDAY IN THE UKRAINE WHY NOT?

“At present, in most of the settlements subjected to radioactive contamination as a result
of Chernobyl, the air dose rate above solid surfaces has returned to the background level
predating the accident. But the air dose rate remains elevated above undisturbed soil in
gardens and parks in some settlements of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.”
[The Chernobyl Forum: 2003–2005]

Table 11 of Annex B,UNSCEAR-2000 lists a number of areas in the world together with their population, where background radiation is far in excess of the average, about 2.4mSv/y.
Brazil Monazite area 73,000 people
France , Central South West 7,000,000 people
Kerala, India 100,000 people
Iran, Ramsar 2000 people.

The table lists 18 places in 9 countries. The air dose in the table is quoted as nGy/h which can be converted to mSv/y. The average dose in Kerala for instance is about 15.7mSv/y. The highest doses are in the monazite area of Brazil and/ or Ramsar (Iran).

BEIR VII report summarises four ecological studies in high background areas. All four are negative. [Ecological studies do not provide information on the dose to individuals].

On current evidence a Ukrainian holiday should not give rise to any radiological concern.

As a wary Greenie I am not prepared to accept pro-mining assurances of radiation safety in disaster areas any more than assurances by mining companies of the restoration of mined areas . The multi Million dollar taxpayer funded cleanup in 1977 after Rum Jungle finished is still contaminated 30 years on. I don't think the Finniss River will ever recover from heavy metal tailings .
We are now faced with an estimated $7.3 million taxpayer funded cleanup at Coronation Hill which will then be included in Kakadu National Park. ERA was piping contaminated water to residents of Jabiru and so the list goes on... Nuclear ? No Thanks !!