I looked at the most credible (to me) of those papers, which was the University of South Carolina study:
That paper concluded that even low levels of radiation are damaging. Okay, right, but let's look at two quotes:
"When you're looking at such small effect sizes, the size of the population you need to study is huge," said co-author Timothy Mousseau,
(authors) combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison
So, what we have here is that if there IS any effect, it takes LOTS of sophisticated study to determine it. "such small effect sizes...huge population (needed)". Plus, I would have to go to the literature and spend lots of time trying to determine whether they chose an appropriate 46 papers out of the 5000! Choosing the "right" papers would be a very easy way to manipulate data, for sure.
I am not saying they did this, but I have built databases for people to do meta-analysis on water chemistry versus corrosion incidents in power plants. (I built databases to do this at my little company in the 90s.) Choosing the data is pretty important and can easily lead to cherry-picking if these authors are throwing out 90% of the papers.
On the other hand, the effects of coal smoke do NOT require such complex analysis. The effects are huge. Lots of data and all over the place for every type of smoke, from cigarettes to wood smoke to coal, to coal with particles over 2.5 um and under , etc. That data shows that coal smoke is far more dangerous than radiation. No complex meta-analysis required on coal smoke, no "small effects" that need huge populations to see any effects.
Yet you celebrate that the German energy plan shuts down nuclear plants and keeps the coal plants running. In your opinion, which you have stated often, the German plan is succeeding because its first goal was shutting down nuclear plants. Apparently, the fact that Germany is running lots of coal plants is secondary and does not diminish the success of its energy plan.
Bas, sorry but a big effect is bigger than a small effect. Coal smoke is more dangerous than low-level radiation. Being hit by a truck is more likely to be fatal than being hit by a kid on a tricycle.
We have been down this path before, and I know I will not convince you. But meanwhile, since you are a good person, I urge you to spend most of your time UPWIND of Germany. No matter how successful you think their energy plan may be—stay upwind!