Radiation and traffic pollution worse than burning a few leaves whilst smoking?. Ludicrous.
When will the press make public the late Dr Kitty little's report on the link between Diesel fumes and lung cancer?.
Do you need data?, just type the words "Diesel and cancer" into Google and see.
A well known daily made this link in the mid 50's and was laughed off. The same daily protested about lead being introduced in petrol with similar results. Is everyone aware of the damage caused by lead in petrol?, the reasons why it was allowed to be introduced?. It was fairly recently banned (very quietly), but the governments responsible have got away with it.

Ernesto Forchetto, Gijon, Spain

About time the risks of nuclear fallout were put into perspective. We live with risk every day of our lives, what seems to determine our acceptance of that risk is our peceived control of it and our understanding of it.

T Ives, Lancashire, UK

How much more evidence do we need before going ahead with congestion charging in all our cities?

Barry, Wallington, UK

Oh dear, another victim of the nuclear industry's propaganda. Here in the West Country we have the highest concentration of nuclear power in the world. We have six times the national average of leukaemia, double the breast cancer incidence. In Somerset, towns along the coastline across the estuary from Hinkley Point Nuclear power stations have had 40 years of carcinogenic radiation blown across in the air and deposited twice daily along the coast by the tide. We have watched our children, mothers and fathers dying. Radiation is worse than cigarette smoke; you can't see it, smell it, hear it or feel it. You breathe it in, it crosses your lungs into your lymph system and any weakness you have will be the first sign of your poisoning. Read 'Wolves of Water' by Chris Busby from Green Audit Books 2006, Aberystwyth SY23 1DZ, it's all in there.

Jo Brown, Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset

This 'research' uses statistics from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite potentially better modern data from Chernobyl.

Why the difference? Because exposure from the A-bombs on Japan was the immediate gamma rays, whereas Chernobyl affects are dominated by fallout polluting the whole environment and foodchains, with exposure determined by bioconcentration and internal radionuclides.

So Chernobyl-related illness is far more extensive and the reality much worse than old-style cancer statistics show. The problem is the pro-nuclear mindset and domination of official bodies via the IAEA etc. who reduce Chernobyl to under a 100 deaths and curable thyroid cancers, when the real numbers are up in hundreds of 1000s.

Max Wallis, Cardiff, Wales

So can we attribute most of the "passive smoking" deaths to inner city air pollution?
A fair point that breathing city smog and fumes is detrimental to your health, but comparing it to radioactive exposure? Personally, I'd rather take my chances with 70 cigarettes than stand 1500m from a nuclear blast. All in all, a better way of spending the money used to do this study would have been to examine what effect the Chernobyl fallout had on the UK- any increase in sterility, cancer, leukemia etc in the age group who where pubescent/ pre-teen in the period 1986-90?

Pete North, manchester,

So as a smoker I am a greater threat than a nuk !
Well its a cheaper alternative than replacing Trident

ray nowak , Norwich, UK

So given the property market today, it makes sense to sell my small flat here in dangerously polluted London and buy most of Chenobyl and live out my extended life there. Does anyone know any estate agents in the Ukraine?

G, London,

Somehow I've missed the point of this article or at least the point suggested by the headline.

There's an lot about the relative merits of being caught in the atomic explosion at Nakasaki. There is something on how Kensington residents have normal life expectancies. A lot about smoking, obesity and alcohol consumption. A single sentence deals with the effects of inner city air pollution - just a statistic with no explanation as to cause.

It concludes with statistics where the layout appears to have gone awry (unclear if the relevant descriptive text is above or below the statistic).

It may just be a very unsuitable headline but even so I'm not sure what an appropriate one might be for this article.

Bob T, London, UK

But it is not just cities that cause the problem. The Government's figures on motorway fall out were that any problem dissipated within two hundred meters. However, they are careful not to state under what conditions of air temperature, moisture levels and wind conditions this may occur. Although motorway pollution may be 'eaten' by nature under current norms environmental conditions generally are changing and may assist motorway pollution to become a greater pollutant, with a preponderance of hot gases in a warmer atmosphere having greater shelf-life. Another problem associated with motorways occurs in town and villages that are on the feeder routes for our major highways, built up areas where building and atmospheric conditions trap gasses and winds are diminished. Additionally, most cars are fuel efficient in the forty to fifty miles an hour bracket and yet with speed bumps, cameras, speed restrictions, ten to thirty is the probable average.

malcolm turner, Alsager, England

Jim Smith's conclusions are known to scientists . Briefly, public perceives exposure to radiation is riskier than exposure to many of the conventional pollutants.This perception is without any solid scientific basis.

While attending the tenth international conference of the International Radiation Protection Association at Hiroshima in 2000, I found many delegates (radiationprotection specialists) making a beeline to the smoking room in between sessions. They inflict cancer on themselves and on passive victims. I worked out that smoking 20 cigarettes a day equals 500mSv per year (annual dose limit now is 20 mSv; nuclear power plant workers are exposed to about 3 mSv)

Dr K. S. Parthasarathy , Mumbai, India

Hello Earth, are there any rational beings still around since our last visit?

Desmond Taylor, Houston, TX