To Richard Katz:

Thank you very much for your comment regarding "show"
versus "argues". Yes, very good point. I accept your amendment.

An "argument" is indeed what has been occurring. You wrote, "Wing's new interpretations of past data have been heavily criticised by other scientists. See, for example...."

The example of "heavy criticism" by "other scientists"
you provided was a criticism of Wing et. al (1997a) written by Maureen Hatch et.al. (1997).
Maureen Hatch et. al. (1997) were the authors of the first investigation into TMI with Columbia in 1990 and 1991.
Thus, Hatch et.al. (1997), criticised Wing et.al.'s
(1997a) criticism of Hatch et.al. (1990; 1991).
Wing et.al. (1997b) in turn published a criticism of Hatch et. al.'s (1997) response.

I cannot say which was the "heaviest".

Although please note that Wing et. al's (1997a) study was robust enough to be admitted as testimony in court, with conditions, as Wing (2003-sole author) freely discusses.

Talbott et. al. (2000) with the university of Pittsburgh did a follow-up study. This was criticised by Wing et. al. (2000). Talbott et. al. did another study in (March) 2003.
Wing explained the issues involved in (Nov) 2003.

Your citation for a "prevalent view" is Talbott et. al.
(November) 2011.
(Previous to that in (April) 2011 Wing et. al.
produced a discussion on the methodology involved in assessing cancer risks in populations near to nuclear sites during normal operations).

I do not know how "prevalent" or 'valid' Talbott et.
al. (2011) is (the former does not necessitate the latter). I note simply that it is the latest input in a complex ongoing debate between a small group of scientists.

I am not willing to dismiss Wing's work just because he is involved in a scientific debate.

However, this is a digression as none of it affects my argument.

Speaking of which,

To everyone else:

It is possible that you missed my original post and so now are under the mistaken impression that I made a categorical prediction for excess cancers for Fukushima based on an endorsement of Wing et. al. (1997a).
I did not.

I mentioned Wing et. al.'s (1997a) "10%" estimate for excess cancers to produce a "rough example" in which I skewed numbers downwards, also proffering a "1%"
figure, to illustrate the problem of population density in which a "small proportional increase" may still represent a "large absolute number". My argument was simply that because "no-one knows" (which I stated more than once), and because there is patchy evidence of some unsettling raw data in the field, caution as to possible danger is more advisable than hubris as to certain safety.

That was it.

Please check the archive when it appears if you are in any doubt and substitute "argues" for "shows" re: Wing, as Richard Katz correctly suggests.

For recent comments from David Brenner (whom Richard Katz has interviewed and cited) in an article which quotes a wide gamut of opinion, see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/20/fukushima-plan
t-disaster-long-term-effects_n_1103874.html

For a 2009 presentation about his study by Steve Wing at the Pennsylvania State Capitol see:

http://www.tmia.com/march26

For a little bit more raw, rough and ready data from the field (feat. the perennially active Dr. Shuntaro Hida), see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=
lpWOeKk1GUo

Best Wishes,
Piers