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

FBaggins

(28,773 posts)
6. Seriously?
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:53 AM
Mar 2013

In light of this?

"This" is saying that the greatest statistical impact expected is:

Assuming a model (LNT) which overestimates radiation risk
Assuming an infant
Assuming that infant lives in the most exposed region of Fukushima
Assuming that she stayed there for an entire year
Assuming she ate only food from that area (including food that was never actually given to anyone because it failed the radiation check)

Assuming all of those things... then she goes from a lifetime risk of 0.75% to a lifetime risk of 1.275%... of getting a cancer that in the vast majority of cases is entirely treatable?

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Report: Infant Girls Expo...»Reply #6