Fukushima’s doses tallied

[FBaggins]

5. Conspiracy fodder?

All I did was show you how much "science" went into the figure (none at all). No conspiracy there... the same calculation has been performed in posts here for over a year (with the same ridiculously faulty assumptions behind them).

As for the report from Nature, I just read your link and the primary part concerns the unpublished (and probably unreviewed) report

Which coincides with a WHO study as well that isn't a draft.

9/10th; most cancers likely caused by radiation are not directly attributable to the radiation, similarly with teratogenic effects and also immune and autoimmune effects. No-one knows precisely why these pathologies are associated with excess radiation doses but there is an association.

So what you're claiming is that there's actual science to document the fact that the impact of radiation is ten times the impact of radiation? And you don't see the internally conflicting logic there?

For the record, not understanding the mechanism by which a particular cancer occured doesn't keep it from ending up in the statistics that feed dose response estimates. It's ridiculous to claim without any evidence at all that they just left out 90% of the health impact in their estimates.