Is one reason why health risks are difficult to judge because a 'snapshot' of radiation at any moment in time does little to give us a sense of the cumulative exposures of whole populations? The cesium-137 or other radioactive substances unleashed into the environment don't just disappear a moment after the microsievert reading is taken; they stay in the air, water, land with varying half lives, and work their way into the food.

And the other question no one asks about 'health' --- beyond human health, what about the impact of long lived radioactive substances on other species....animals, plants, where is the reading on that? How long does food stay radioactive? What does it do to the viability of livestock? Can it endanger species, birds, insects, etc., and cause mutations?

People get hysterical of radiation from a plant 6000 miles away. But they dont hesitate to get that MRI as long as insurance will cover the expense....Laughable.

Frankie13: Actually, people do ask those "other questions:" they perform many studies on such questions, and there's a great quantity of information available to answer them, IF anyone bothers to look it up. For instance, despite the magnitude and scope of the Cernobyl disaster, the lands around the plant are anything but a wasteland, and the animals and plants are rapidly taking back the region as their own now that people aren't around so much to bother them. They seem to be doing fine - no huge lumps of cancer on every living thing, and definitely no mutant six-legged squirrels, giant glowing butterflies, or meat-eating carnivorous flowers, either. People who will believe in that sort of business are watching too many science fiction movies and/or "Simpsons" cartoons, and not getting a proper education in primary and secondary school, I think.

11madness: You do realize that an MRI (for "Magnetic Resonance Imaging") does NOT involve the use of ionizing radiation similar to that from X-ray devices, radioactive materials, or the fuel at nuclear power plants . . . . right?

Now, if you'd said "they don't hesitate to get that CAT scan," then your comparison would have been more apt . . . still, I do indeed agree with your sentiment.