Both these groups have had discussions about nuclear power, wind power, and the dangers and uselessness of them. I came across this:
It suggests that the linear no threshold model is indeed wrong. But much to my surprise, it seems low doses are _less_ safe pro rata than higher ones. So if a given dose give you a 1:100 chance of getting cancer, 1/1000th of the dose doesn't give you a 1:100,000 chance (as linear no threshold suggests) nor a zero risk (as has been suggested from examining records from places like Dartmoor) but a higher risk, perhaps 1:50,000.
Probably still not enough to matter, but still interesting. And I still think wind farms are useless!
Andy