Although I have a great respect for Mr. Gundersen, I do have a problem with the source he quotes.
Models are projections, nothing more, nothing less. They are the what if factor often present in the absence of raw primary data. They anticipate possible statistical outcomes only and should never be viewed as substitutes for actual research data.
My personal feeling is that if we really wanted to understand the human toll from Fukushima, qualitative scientists like anthropologists should be hired to perform a long term observational study in the areas mapped by European tracking systems which followed the spread of radiation during March/April onwards.
I can guarantee that their outcomes would be horrendously higher than a million because of the cumulative nature of observational research, and there is nothing more cumulative than radiation - especially when it is still seeping, and will continue to seep into our seas, our air, and onto our land and food sources for an unknown period, perhaps decades.
*
The feeling among quantitive scientists is that we will never know if diseases are caused by Fukushima radiation or some other factor. Observationally, I would argue that we can by studying the society itself.
