Well yes, the 'risk projections' is a mealy mouthed way of saying 'models based on assumptions'
At least the conclusions is 'too small to be reliably measured'
And what assumptions? LNT?
Almost certainly because no one else has really come up with anything more accurate. We know LNT is between 100 and 1000 times too pessimistic, at any elevated dose levels and the truth is that peak dosage is far more important than cumulative chronic low level dosage.
Exclusion zone at Chernobyl is quite low - there are hot spots but mostly its in the 20-50mSv/y level. Ramsar in Iran has a background of
50-200mSv/y. It has a lightly *lower* cancer rate than average. (it's not statistically significant IIRC)The key to cellular mutations seems to be to get enough radiation to cause BOTH strands of DNA to mutate identically before the cell dies. That a very slender chance at low dosages.
If you get radiotherapy *enough radiation to kill you* if applied whole body is given. Several Sv in a short time. There is a 15% increased chance of unrelated cancers developing as a result.
And that's it. a few people died at Hiroshima from radiation induced cancers a few years later, but the majority of people died then and there from blast and incineration or in the next few weeks from massive radiation exposure. Hiroshima was never cleaned up, and its a healthy place to live now.