I've found it very difficult to get solid figures about deaths and cancer rates following radiation exposure, types of isotopes and type of radiation, rates, and times.
I think the problem is with the epidemiological methods which are constantly getting changed and fought over. The underlying issue is that it is easy to establish direct cause and effect for high exposure cases that present obvious radiation poisoning. This level kills cells and can be measured by taking protein blood counts. The type of proteins in the blood that show up with large numbers of dead cells has been well studied.
But damage to DNA and other cell pathways which don't kill the cell are much more difficult to determine, so the studies use statistical probability arguments. This methodological change has replaced a cause-effect argument with probability arguments and population studies. You get reported rates of diagnosis, treatment, disability, death, etc and look at comparisions by pop/region with similar characteristics. There are also controversies over how to measure `normal background', which also complicates the population studies.
The two types of ionizing radiation alpha and gamma vary with the isotope, time and distance. Alpha is short range, so its danger is inhaling or injusting particulates especially those that accumulate in tissues. Gamma is high intensity and long range like x-rays. (I think. I am trying to remember this shit)
It would be very important to know types, isotopes, ranges and measure protocols used in the Japanese disaster. Not that we the common scum are going to find this out.
Just as I was meditating on the information wars, I watched a hilarious program on RT called the Keiser Report. One of the guest was Michael Betancourt. Never heard of him. But his short interview was sure good.
Anyway, I went looking around for Agnotology on wiki:
``Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data....
More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.
A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use...''
This pretty much captures the general state of affairs in the US today about everything. The perverse un-real infor-war that goes on during a crisis of any kind is not just politically obnoxious, but is getting into worrisome ranges for me.
CG