This is a grossly irresponsible abuse of statistics. What's even stranger is that the author agrees. In his paper (conclusions, page 15): >The major public hea

This is a grossly irresponsible abuse of statistics. What's even stranger is that the author agrees. In his paper (conclusions, page 15): >The major public health effect of concern at low doses of ionizing radiation is cancer. There is clear evidence of cancer induction at effective dose above about 200 mSv. Below an effective dose of about 100 mSv radiogenic cancer mortality risk estimates for all cancers is highly uncertain. 16 It is not possible to determine reliably whether a radiogenic risk is present in an X-ray screening population because of the high spontaneous incidence of cancer and multifactorial nature of disease causation 17. >Use of collective dose to estimate public health impacts when large populations are exposed to trivial doses is inappropriate and not reasonable. The assumptions implicit in the collective dose calculation conceal large biological and statistical uncertainties.16 If an individual passenger is not harmed by X-ray screening then the population isn’t either. "Inappropriate and not reasonable". Yet on his webpage (not submitted to peer review), he does exactly that.