Mark Lynas's pro-nuclear rant
Comments from LLRC that the New Statesman rejected.

Mark Lynas, writing in the New Statesman (March 26, 2010) has fallen into the same pro-nuclear trap as Simon Jenkins did in January. Our remarks on "Scientific absurdity at The Guardian" show what nonsense that was.

The basic problem is that these people can't see through the trickery that foisted "Absorbed Dose" on us and they continually make false comparisons between natural background radiation and the many kinds of radio-pollutant for which Absorbed Dose cannot validly be used (they're almost exclusively anthropogenic).

Chernobyl is the ghost at the nuclear apologists' wedding, and they have to deny its health effects. For the other view, which I don't hear UK campaigners refer to nearly often enough, see "Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident" The first edition of the entire book is a free download.
And see - Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.It's expensive but full of hard evidence.

The new report on Uranium from the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) gives detail explaining how some kinds of exposure can be harmful enough to cause the health effects we see after Chernobyl (and many other observations), despite the low doses attributed to them. It's here and it's indispensable if you're interested in science rather than flannel. A great deal more information is now being printed in the new 2010 edition of the Recommendations of the ECRR.

For pro-nuclear absurdity in the same vein as Mark Lynas and Simon Jenkins, see Sington's Aspirin - a false analogy uttered by BBC producer David Sington when he was trying to defend Horizon's drivelling denial of Chernobyl. It should be in textbooks of bad science.