While I agree entirely with Paul Wick's position on Fukushima, I don't think it is justified to describe the author as "ignorant or an anti-nuclear zealot." Rather, the author is reflecting the consensus or norms of the society for which she is writing-- a society that has been badly mis-informed on the relative risks of radiation and nuclear power by a wave of anti-nuclear propaganda for over 40 years now. Currently there is no way for the average American citizen-- or even a well-educated journalist or engineer-- to know whether this "research study" out of Stanford is accurate or is biased, unless they (the author for example) were willing to do many hours of independent study in reading the most recent research on radiation oncogenesis. In fact, the Stanford study is horrible wrong. But many scientists and engineers who are not experts on radiation oncogenesis cannot possibly know that, because there has been too much mis-information for too many decades now.
Even our own USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses the erroneous "Linear-No-Threshold" (LNT) model to calculate some kinds of environmental risk-- they do this because it is written into US law that way, even though the scientists at NRC know that the LNT model is incorrect and predicts far more cancers than will actually occur. The anti-nuclear scientists at Stanford who did this study no doubt believe in their model-- though they are scientists, they have apparently not read everything in their field, or they chose to ignore some of the research out there because of their personal biases-- including the papers in the last 20 years that have powerfully demonstrated the falsehood and dangerously expensive inaccuracy of the LNT model. So let us avoid personal attacks against responsible journalists who are, after all, only as mis-informed as the majority of scientists, medics, and engineers in their own nation. We have enormous educational work to do if we are to get accurate nuclear risk models in place for the future--let us start on the right foot by saying, in a situation and a society like this, it is OK to be misinformed-- just not OK to STAY misinformed if there are clear scientific data that show the way to a better model. Then provide a link to the best radiation research data and position papers that explain the science as we know it now, such as this one:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/443 
