Reply #20: data at low doses have large error bars

[Bdog]

and can be fit to mathematical models that show a threshold, no threshold, reduced effect, and in some cases even a beneficial (protective) effect, depending on the model one picks. Apparently, some people will go even farther and misrepresent the data and give the false impression that radiation events are harmless or beneficial.

http://www.rerf.or.jp/top/healthe.htm
Excess cancer, including leukemia, is the most important late effect of radiation exposure observed among atomic-bomb survivors. For cancers other than leukemia, which will be discussed separately, we now know that excess risk associated with radiation began to be exhibited five to ten years after exposure. This was first noted by a Japanese physician, Gensaku Oho, in 1956, and led city medical associations in Hiroshima (1957) and Nagasaki (1958) to create tumor registries for comprehensive analyses. As the survivors have aged, these excess risks have increased at about the same rate as, ie, in proportion to, cancer risks in an unexposed, or so-called "zero-dose", population. Significant excess risks are seen for all cancers as a group and, when considered separately, for many specific types including cancers of the stomach, lung, liver, colon, bladder, breast, ovaries, thyroid, and skin, as well as multiple myeloma. Although not statistically significant, excess risks are seen for most other types of cancer. Thus, the survivor data provide support for the notion that radiation can be associated with excess risks for virtually all types of cancer.