Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

FBaggins

(28,705 posts)

5. Exactly,

Reply to wtmusic (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:16 PM

Feb 2013

Presumably, there aren't very many infants in the most-contaminated portions of Fukushima who stayed there for an entire year.

As an upper-bounds approximation of additional risk using LNT, this is dramatically better than even I expected in March of 2011.

Not that it will keep the usual suspects from misreading/misrepresenting the report (or making up their own entirely).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cancer risk 70% higher for females in Fukushima area, says WHO [View all] xchrom Feb 2013 OP

I would imagine thyroid cancers are increasing newfie11 Feb 2013 #1

Fukushima medical? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #9

Fukushima: 'Small increased cancer risk' xchrom Feb 2013 #2

A much better title FBaggins Feb 2013 #3

But the total expected increased risk is less Yo_Mama Mar 2013 #10

Let's take a look at the report. wtmusic Feb 2013 #4

Exactly, FBaggins Feb 2013 #5

Proportion does matter, but you need to have accurate data first kristopher Feb 2013 #7

LIES!!! PamW Feb 2013 #8

WHO downplayed health effects of nuclear crisis on Fukushima residents : German physician kristopher Feb 2013 #6

Grasping at straws. FBaggins Mar 2013 #11