Have the consequences of reactor accidents for the population been well assessed? Six questions to the experts in the field

Six questions to the experts in the field are posed: (1) Why is the assessment of accident consequences not separated in long-term and peak exposure? (2) Why is the exposure due to I-131 seen critical mainly in regard to the thyroid? (3) Do you have any reliable relations of health risk versus peak exposure? (4) Why do you not abolish the LNT assumption and replace it with a threshold model? (5) Why do you include indirect, psycho-somatic effects in assessing the consequences of reactor accidents when this is not customary with accidents with often more casualties? (6) How can the number of Chernobyl-assigned thyroid cancers have risen from some 600 about to some 4,000 today, when the latency period is in the range of 4 to 5 years?