It's not my knee that's jerking. Risk comparisons need to be revised. New theory and much epidemiology show radioactive discharges are between 100 and 1000 times as dangerous as officials currently think.
This blog began with the KiKK study. Initiated by the German government in response to public concern, it was designed by a balanced panel which included public interest scientists. That's as near independence as we'll ever get. German officials say KiKK demonstrates a 10,000-fold discrepancy with ICRP estimates. The 1991 American paper cited by Divergence looks crude. The method did not look at the distribution of discharges. Other studies show marked differences when locations downwind of the reactor are compared with upwind. In comments Divergence did not cite, John Boice said the counties "may be too large to detect risks present only in limited areas around the plants". KiKK doesn't fall into that trap.
The paper shows decreased childhood leukaemia after reactors went live. It is biologically inevitable that at some levels of exposure children will die of competing causes before leukaemia can be diagnosed. This is observed in some of the more contaminated areas around Chernobyl. It's more obvious for infant leukaemia (0-1 year) but the 1991 paper lumps infant leukaemia in with all ages up to teens, so it's not possible to tell what's going on, particularly since there's no data for exposures. It's no answer to KiKK, with its precise locational data, and it doesn't invalidate the Chernobyl studies or those showing increased childhood leukaemia around reprocessing plant.
Radioepidemiology is difficult because there are no uncontaminated controls. By 1964 all the human beings on the planet contained measurable amounts of Strontium90. We are living through a generalised cancer epidemic and the ICRP risk model is not capable of determining that it's not caused by the radioactive fallout. Episodes like Chernobyl provide abundant evidence of harm and the same is true of locations where radioactive discharges concentrate.
To get my vote, transmutation technology would have to demonstrate that its discharges and waste streams wouldn't fall foul of the shortcomings in the ICRP risk model

“Your out of hand rejection of the independent study because the results were published in an IEAE (sic) paper are (sic) typical of the knee jerk reaction of the green movement to any information that does not support their cause.”

Shadow Minister - The “independent” study to which you refer was prepared by S Haddad and R Dones who are staff members in the IAEA Division of Nuclear Safety. One could hardly refer to the paper as an independent source even though the authors did dredge up data from a paper published by someone else in 1989.

Furthermore, the fatalities published in the report were in terms of immediate fatalities. Delayed fatalities, and the long lag times between radiation exposure and health symptoms, also relevant for the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, are not included.

The IAEA is a pro-nuclear, intergovernmental agency. They have a vested interest in promoting nuclear electricity the world over as their statute advises.

The Chernobyl case is a classic example of the IAEA's inadequacy, questionable science and data diddlers.

Rosalie Bertell has held positions of Director of Radiation Research, Senior Cancer Research Scientist and many other relevant posts. Her credentials are listed here:

http://www.layinstitute.org/securedweb/gjxjsg6os0o3i6uzxmhksyw5tr5ooiblspwafkwtcm7e3_msdlc62nzdvgmv2fkj.pdf

Bertell advises:

“The essential problem is that both the IAEA and the ICRP are dealing not with science but with politics and administration; not with public health but with maintaining an increasingly dubious industry. It is their interests, and those of the nuclear industry, to play down the health effects of radiation.”

I have in my possession Bertell’s publication: “No Immediate Danger – A Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth.” I recommend it to all who have concerns over the fragile state of the environment and the impacts of the military and civil nuclear industries on human health and the biosphere.

"Living near a coal-fired power station would give you 100 to 300 times more radiation exposure than living next to a nuclear power plant, and even that is trivial and not the reason coal burning is damaging to your health. To consider the annual radiation caused by nuclear power stations as anything dangerous is a gross form of public deception."

Barry Brook - To the best of my knowledge, coal-fired power stations operating in Australia are not required to analyse hazardous stack emissions for radioactive substances and if they do, why aren't radioactive emissions' reports available to the public, through the National Pollutant Inventory? Please provide links to support your references on the radioactive emissions released from specific coal-fired plants. My curiosity should not be interpreted as one supporting the coal industry.

I am disappointed that a man in your prominent position fails to refer to the entire nuclear cycle in his publications. The uranium industry in Australia has an ignominious history and the proposed increase in Uranium mines (especially in WA) is a major threat to Australia's sustainable future, particularly its leaks, spills, poor occupational safety record and its prolific use of water, energy and the quarantine of contaminated (and precious) land in perpetuity.

One can put lipstick on a pig but it would be hypocritical of anyone to list uranium as a "clean" source of fuel for a nuclear industry. Futhermore, the documented evidence of the mining industry's operations in Australia (and its regulators) reveals their profound incompetence and a total disregard for the environment and Australia's fragile biodiversity.

Protagoras, fear, dread, scare, other peoples opinions, problems, problems and not a solution in sight. Not to mention a bucket load of pseudo-science.

Why don’t you do a mail drop to the French and see what they have to say. They run some 74 plus nuclear power stations and you cannot help but live near one, even if you go to the beach you see them. They generate 80% of their energy from a combination of nuclear and hydro. Wouldn’t we just luuuuuve to have those figures.

Don’t know how many trillion Euro’s they have banked up in Kyoto Carbon credits, they must be absolutely wetting themselves with laughter at people like you. Actually, I doubt they have ever met someone like you because they don’t have an “anti-nuclear power lobby” obviously, and we all know how they deal with Greenpeace.

What you miss completely is the fact that some are already doing what you are trying to prevent. No matter what you present as the negatives, those who are actually doing it and really hacking down carbon emissions have proved you wrong by real world example, they just enjoy the benefits.

There is a message here somewhere, but I really don’t think you’re going to get it.

Protagoras,

I never claimed the article was independent, only that the paper upon which it was based was independent.

If you had read the post, or the acreditation beyond what you wanted to see: "This article is based upon a key issues paper (number 3) prepared by an international expert group under the chairmanship of M.J. Chadwick of the United Kingdom for the International Senior Expert Symposium on Electricity and the Environment"

Proof that you never bothered to read it is that the paper deals with long term issues as well as the immediate.

No one is saying that nuclear power is completely safe, just that the same scrutiny that is applied to nuclear is not applied to any of the other technologies, if this was done, the path ahead would be clear.

I include you in the challenge to find any independent study that contradicts these findings, as I couldn't.

People seem to be missing the point of what I have written on this blog. Exercises to compare risks have used invalid radiation risk estimates, while evidence strongly suggests that the true risks are between 2 and 4 orders of magnitude greater. For example COMARE reckoned the Seascale leukaemia cluster is 300 times greater than predicted on the basis of Sellafield's discharges; the UKAEA calculated that excess prostate cancer in nuclear workers was 1000 greater than predicted for any conceivable level of internal contamination; the German government agencies think KiKK is 10,000 times greater. There are many such examples. The comparisons therefore have to be revised. One could get an idea of what a revision would look like by revisiting any papers that give data for long-term public risks consequent upon routine discharges and multiplying them by any of the above errors. My proposal, of course, leaves aside the consequences of accidents.