Indeed I can.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312002341

from the article itself.

It looks very much like an experimental error. The fact they didn't use a multichannel analyser to look at the energy of the signal makes it very hard to exclude background signal (like from the sun, a massive radiation source).

They didn't even use much of a lead shield - 5mm, which is hardly anything for higher energy photons.

Looks like an error confusing absorbed dose (in gray) with effective dose (in sieverts). The effective dose would include the weighting factor for breast tissue and would be ~10 or 20 times smaller.

It is slightly disingenius to suggest there is no evidence for the linear no-threshold model. All the epidemiological data at higher doses supports it. Low dose data is weak, we know that and it is a problem.

That said, it is clear from cell studies and animal studies that the type of radiation, dose rates, fractionation and the possible priming of repair mechanisms all play a part in low dose risk. It is reasonable to assume that low dose radiation risk is non-linear, but it is damn near impossible to actually plot the relationship.

I know there a strong proponents of the idea of a threshold. That's where this 100mSv number keeps coming from. Do keep in mind that there is a lot of money in cleaning up waste etc, and a lot of people with vested interests.

While the ICRP support the LNT as the best practical model, I'll keep using it. When they pick a better one, I (and my colleagues) will move to that.

They are used for different things.

Exposure (Roentgens) is a measure of radiation in air. Useful for physicists, but not for anyone else.

Absorbed dose (gray, J/kg) is a meaure of the energy deposited. Useful for single organ tissue effects (look up deterministic effects).

Equivalent dose (sievert) is absorbed dose corrected with a radiation weighting factor, as high energy transfer radiation is more damaging (ie alpha radiation).

Effective dose (also sievert) reflects the biological risk by including a tissue weighting factor. This is important when doses are received only by certain organs. More useful for estimating cancer risk.

Rads and Rems are old and deprecated non-SI units.

According to the HPA, 0.03 microSv. Pretty low, compared to the flight. http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/UnderstandingRadiation/UnderstandingRadiationTopics/BodyScanners/

As I have posted separately, there is a fully scientific critique of this research from Texas A&M

http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/Much%20Ado.pdf

I have my concerns that the Slashdot crowd seem to have immediately disregarded this research, particularly that "correlation is not causation" rant. In this case, they *have* been looking for causation. There is, however, already a response from researchers at Texas A&M discussing the flaws of this particular paper (link below), including selection bias and apparent contradictions from other evidence. In short, peer-review is acting just as it should. It is only because Anderson has jammed out a press release to get his 15 minutes that we are even discussing it. Link to A&M paper http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/Much%20Ado.pdf

Seems like a sensible plan. Afterall, don't all the computer shops force you to separately buy an over-priced USB lead to go with a new printer? Why not do the same for an OS? Then, those in the know can do like we do with the USB leads - get it somewhere cheaper.