Low Radiation may not be as harmful... So ?

[Helen22]

Will New Research Lead in Revision of Conclusions? For example, I wonder how (or if) the figures in the table on page 185 of the "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", New York Academy of Sciences, Vol 1181 (see below) would change in view of some of the new scientific findings about the harm of low levels of radiation. As far as I know, the results in the table are based on statistical models, would they be revised if new, additional evidence in the effect of low levels or radiation is collected?

This has always bugged me, i.e., how hard it is to "undo" the harm that has sometimes been done (mostly unintentional), when new, valid research contradicts earlier findings.

It will be interesting to see what the continued research on Low Levels of Radiation uncovers and how that might change things - or not

Since I am attaching the file, take a look at section & (page 192) and follow its conclusions to page 201, where 900,000+ are attributed to Chernobyl by 2004. Talk about black magic But, that's what the general public sees, and "big" numbers are always more impressive. I don't blame the public, I blame the irresponsible scientists reporting such numbers

[KimChin]

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll see the Manganos and others running to correct their reports, regardless of how "valid" the new research results are deemed to be.