Report: Infant Girls Exposed to Most-Contaminated Fukushima Area Face 70% Higher Risk Thyroid Cancer

[FBaggins]

10. Nope. It's just what I said (twice now).

I gave you the summary... and if that was too much, the longer version won't do you much good. But here's what they were summarizing in that statement (emphasis mine):

To avoid any underestimation of risks, the HRA Expert Group adopted the LNT model as the most reasonable approximation of the relation between low-dose radiation exposure and cancer risks and made the prudent choice of not applying a dose and dose rate effectiveness
factor (DDREF). Because this HRA is based on a LNT model and the risk quantity adopted (LAR) is proportional to the dose, more refined risk estimations can be provided in the future if a more detailed dose assessment becomes available.

The HRA Expert Group considers the risk estimates robust on the basis of existing knowledge and information at the time of this assessment. The input data and risk models used are considered to be the most appropriate at present. An effort was made to avoid any underestimation of risks when adopting assumptions; hence, any possible bias is likely directed toward overestimation of health risks.

IOW, they admit this situation is opening up all new fields of science

Nope... That isn't what they're saying at all. The levels are so low that they get lost in the background noise. As you've probably been told a dozen times (and ignored each time), there is no difference between "natural" and "manmade" radiation. Scientists have a very tough time identifying your exact exposure when we're talking about values that low. Let me give you an example.

Radon levels in your kitchen could be different from those in your basement... but the granite in your countertops only gives you a dose when you're in the kitchen. The bricks in your fireplace and walls are radioactive, but you're not near them all day long. Your dietary intake can impact your dose... and a hundred other things (before we even talk about medical exposure). So they look at your life and try to determine what your exposure is... and all they can do is come up with a range. We'll call that range 5-30 UUs (unspecified units). Now you come in with a new exposure (you read the word "Fukushima" and it scared you)... and they determin that it was 5 UUs. The new dose is swallowed up in the estimation error of your existing dose. So when they add you to the study, it's challenging to figure out where to put you on the dose scale. If there are a million of you and two additional cancers show up... is it just statistical variation? Is it something to expect at 15UUs? or 20? Or 25? They simply can't tell.

It is by no means a "new field of science"... it's very well understood. It's just that the risks are too small to quantify.

Most of the self-claiming scientist we see here are claiming that they know everything already.

Nope. That's another one of your strawmen. What they've (correctly) claimed is that they know more than enough to correct your errors. Which I can tell you from personal experience requires far less than "everything".