Damage Documented from low dose 1mSv and Background Radiation Sources

The absence of the WHO (UN World Health Organization) is remarkable in these statements. Especially since human health is their primary responsibility.

The WHO did issue a report regarding the negative health effects:

Increased cancer risks for affected children in the region between 4% (solid cancers), 7% for leukemia, 70% for thyroid cancers.

That organizations such as IAEA & UNSCEAR, whose members have substantial interest in more nuclear declare that Fukushima doesn’t harm human health, says little.

Research after Chernobyl clearly showed that extra levels of only 1mSv/year harm next generations already substantial:

http://tchie.uni.opole.pl/ecoproc10a/ScherbVoigt_PECO10_1.pdf

Here is one example from that report from Chernobyl using a vast amount of data over a long period of time.  CLP is Cleft Lip.    

In Bavaria, from October 1986 to December 1990, the CLP frequency increased by 9.5% (p = 0.10) relative to the trend as computed from the remaining years. The association of CLP rates with fallout on a district level is reflected by a significant relative risk (RR) per kBq/m 2 of RR=1.008 (p = 0.03). A synoptic analysis of the Bavarian data and the GDR data restricted to the overlapping time window from 1984 to 1989 discloses a simultaneous significant jump of the CLP prevalence by 8.6% (p = 0.02) after 1986. The presumption of a long-term increase of CLP after exposure to Chernobyl fallout is corroborated by the analysis of the Bavarian congenital malformation data [13].

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These from an ENENEWer

Mad_Scientists

May 18, 2014 at 1:32 am · Reply

These may (or may not be) helpful:
Environmental Radiation Factsheet
https://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet.pdf
Radioactivity in Nature
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

Craig-123

May 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm · Reply

Thanks, MS: there's much baseline, survey and assumptions information in these two resources that I didn't have. The difference between the NCRP-95 (1987) and NCRP-160 (2006) documents was particularly interesting. Average annual exposure nearly doubles.