The reference you give doesn’t make the statement you quote.
Good catch. I must have added the wrong reference to my notes. However, the quote is 100% accurate and attributed to the National Academies. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=332
Also, the report I did cite states very clearly that “The report concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses, although the risk is small.” QED: radiation hormesis has no credible support.
In fact the only mention of Hormesis does not suggest it to be a “fringe hypothesis” but something worth further investigation.
You clearly did not read the PDF properly. See quote above. Many fringe scientific beliefs are worth further investigation. They are still fringe beliefs without evidence.
Radiation hormesis is a fringe belief with no credible scientific support.
You can’t seriously be quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Really? LOL
Someone else doesn’t understand that Wikipedia is not the source - it’s a repository of sources! LOL
Quoting from your own citation…
Which in no way contradicts the clear message: “Radiation is *always* harmful — it breaks DNA, for instance, and can produce free radicals that damage cells. ... So: radiation is bad for you, cellular defense mechanisms are good for you.”
Just because cells have a defence mechanism to radiation does not mean it’s good for them. I could punch you in the face and your face would swell to cope with the damage - doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
...the anti-nuclear crowd would have you believe that any release radioactive particles into the environment is a crime against humanity and disaster of epic proportions…
Ignoring your hyperbolic description, yes - any sane person should view the release of toxins in to the environment as a very bad thing. If you educate yourself on things like species extinction you would understand why.
...while at the same ignoring the uncontrolled release of hundreds of tons of uranium and other radioactive elements by coal burning…
You seem very ignorant about environmental issues. I know of no one who is the least educated that does not realise coal is bad and needs to be phased out ASAP.
...wind (high inconsistency require substantial backup with natural gas burning).
Your ignorance extends far and wide! Here’s one clue to help you:
* Fukushima Nuclear Year-to-Year Reliability and German Wind. German Wind more Stable Year-to-Year than Fukushima Reactors. http://www.wind-works.org/FeedLaws/Japan/FukushimaNuclearYeartoYearReliabilityandGermanWind.html
P.S. Welcome to the forum. Good to see you joined just to comment on this thread.