"Hot Particles"

within cancer incidence statistics within as little as two to five years. There'll be a clear, statistically significant rise.

However, given that no such increase is statistically detectable across those areas with decent statistics which were exposed to Chernobyl emissions, or to the fallout from the 1956 Windscale fire, I'm certain we won't see a detectable effect. FWIW, I grew up in an area which was directly exposed as a result of Windscale, and if anything, the region's cancer incidence is slightly lower than than conparible areas of the UK.

It's important, when looking at studies in this area to differentiate between those that

(a) attempt to detect a signal in actual mortality or incidence statistics

and

(b) those that take a population does then "estimate" mortality or incidence by retrofitting an assumed relationship between exposure and mortality/incidence.

In this particular case, here examples of each:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/20/3/301

and

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/27/3/E02

Instinctively, I find myself favouring the former - not because of the results, but an inate preference for the gleaning of data from experiment or observation, as opposed to assumed relationships.

So far as the surrent situation is concerned, here's another notable item - ironically, from one of the authors of the second of the two studies listed above.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/42282156qm2617x5/

"...a pronounced excess of childhood leukaemia would have been expected as a consequence of the short period of intense atmospheric weapons testing. We have examined childhood leukaemia incidence in 11 large-scale cancer registries in three continents for which data were available at least as early as 1962. We found no evidence of a wave of excess cases corresponding to the peak of radioactive fallout from atmospheric weapons testing. The absence of a discernible increase in the incidence of childhood leukaemia following the period of maximum exposure to the radioactive debris of this testing weighs heavily against the suggestion that conventional methods are seriously in error when assessing the risk of childhood leukaemia from exposure to man-made radionuclides released from nuclear installations."

In terms of overall radiation sensitivity, effects in terms of leukemia in children ought to be detectable at much lower doses, including of particulates, than just about any other form of exposure. Add to that, in terms of "hot particle" generation, those years of intense atmospheric testing will exceed anything from Fukushima by orders of magnitude. Something like 1700 bombs were exploded in the atmosphere, and if we make a conservative estimate of 20kg of U or Pu per bomb (the UK's largest test used well over 100Kg, and I'd be amazed if the US and Soviets hadn't tested larger), that's something over 30 tonnes released - plus activation products, etc.

By contrast, I've seen nothing to suggest a gross release of actinides from Fukushima. The detected amounts of Pu at the site are in the sub-microgramme range - the sort of amounts you might expect to see entrained in venting, when there's damaged fuel. That's easy to veryfy, btw - it's a simple calculation to convert the detected amounts (in terms of bequerels) to mass.

There's certainly been nothing analogous to the large scale lofting of particulates seen at Chernobyl - we know now that Gundersen's and others claim of large scale damage in the R4 fuel pond aren't borne out, and there's nothing that's occurred on the reactors themselves to release large quantities.

Only if they live on air and don't eat, drink or bathe....