Re: Hmmm
"http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/"
if you look more deeply into that you'll see that they lump a lot of things together, with more problems and deaths being caused by relocation trauma amongst the elderly (which also happens after large earthquakes and suchlike) and the generally atrocious state of medical care in former soviet countries.
The actual number of deaths caused by radiation exposure is quite low and if someone dies at age 82 instead of 83 due to exposure, how are you going to differentiate that from decades of drinking bad vodka or smoking?
Aircrew get far higher radiation exposures than any other occupation on the planet and the rate of excess deaths or cancers attributable to high energy proton/gamma radiation exposure is essentially zero. (Smokers get higher doses still, but what kills them is almost invariably chemically triggered even if the triggers are polonium breakdown products in the lungs, such as lead and bismuth)
For years, WHO was telling us that single men didn't live as long as single women based on japanese studies and missed the factor that the essential difference which hadn't been factored in was _diet_ - and once that was added into calculations, everything equallled out.
The facts of the matter is that the _only_ way that carbon emissions can be capped, let alone reduced is by moving wholesale to nuclear power and it's better to use a system that was proven safer 50 years ago before being shut down for primarily military/political reasons. Greenwashing by trying to count burning old growth forests as "renewables" is one of the more heinous environmental frauds.