You're speaking with unwarranted certainty on this subject. there is much that is unknown on this subject due to very sparse data, and the fact that cancer rate

You're speaking with unwarranted certainty on this subject. there is much that is unknown on this subject due to very sparse data, and the fact that cancer rates are already relatively high in the general population and affected by a myriad of environmental and lifestyle factors. We live in a world where the available data allows credible scientists to observe a hormetic effect in animal models exposed to low-dose radiation, and where longitudinal studies of people who live in areas with naturally higher background radiation (higher than large areas of the exclusion zone), such as Colorado experience lower than average cancer rates.[1] Furthermore, the death toll from nuclear power generation, should be considered in comparison to the death toll of other power technologies. While it is arguable that many renewable tech are comparable and possibly have become better than nuclear in terms of safety, the deaths caused even just by radioactive particles spewed into the environment from coal plants is much higher than nuclear. It is a classic case of seen vs. unseen effects.[2] The unstated argument in this thread is whether the precautionary principle should be applied to public health policy with regards to human-caused radiation. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that it should based on unknowns, but it doesn't help to make overly certain assumptions that have weak scientific support. [1] a decent jumping off point on this stuff is the Wikipedia article on radiation hormesis - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis [2] Another quick jumping off point, with a myriad of links and charts from credible government and international organizations. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1 http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...