Yes, and because I've heard a lot of what Lyman has to say I'm prepared for his take on the matter, as well as for Brennan and many of the others quoted in the article as well. I guess I'm relieved that the author of the article let each of the interviewees state their positions without adding any spin of his own. He kind of simply laid out the "he said, she said" argument.
As for Lyman's position, I agree that it makes my logic neuron hurt (I'm pretty sure I don't have more than one...). But the larger issue is "how few illnesses or deaths are few enough not to worry about?" And I think he's trying to highlight that. We're all forced into the position of accepting a certain number as part of our participation in a developed society, through automobile accidents, carcinogens in our food, etc etc.. If we were one day able to detect these currently undetectable casualties, would we want to change our risk parameters, and possibly eliminate one cause? I think we would, because we want to become a better, fairer, healthier society. It's the same question as, "How safe is safe enough?" And at what point do we decide that the diminishing returns no longer make it worthwhile, and we make individuals responsible for protecting themselves from the lesser risks? Would that even be possible in the case of anthropogenic radiation?
I'd like to add that I'm glad the author said that various other diseases, like diabetes, cataracts and heart problems, have been "hinted at" by some Chernobyl studies, and not, as quite few people insist, that they have been "demonstrated" or "proven." And I'm SO glad he didn't give Busby's lunacy a platform. Looks like the latter is finally getting his due, btw:
"Post-Fukushima 'anti-radiation' pills condemned by scientists
Green party distances itself from Dr Christopher Busby, a former spokesman promoting products following Japanese nuclear disaster"