That article already explains: They offer no good controls, because we aren’t working with data from before the accident. It's rough Geiger counter re

That article already explains: They offer no good controls, because we aren’t working with data from before the accident. It's rough Geiger counter reading without any effort to determine if those readings are normal, or if there is an increase then which isotopes are causing the reading and where they came from. That last point is especially important, because when Japan shut down the nuclear reactors after the tsunami, they increased their use of coal, which can be a larger source of radioactive pollution. Also, while the article doesn't really have enough details to say for certain, using only Geiger readings suggests an analysis based on the incorrect "linear no-threshold" model. The lack of concern for a control suggests they are assuming that any radiation is must be dangerous. After skimming the paper[1]... I'll have to defer to someone with a better background in statistics. Their modeling seems strange and there seems to be too much focus on P values, but that may be my misunderstanding. [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10336-015-1197-2/fulltext.html http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10336-015-1197-2/f...