If you look at the relative risk curve (the very last page of the supplementary data), most of the exposure levels contain 1 in the relative risk estimate (also please notice that for some reason the confidence interval is 90%, if choosing the customary 95% all relative risk confidence intervals would probably overlap relative risk of 1.0):
The fact that ~10mGy seems to not have 1.0 in the confidence interval is kind of bothering to me. Normal annual background radiation should be about ~3.5mGy (so 10mGy is about 3 years normal background radiation) and getting an increased solid tumor mortality risk from normal radiation levels, does suggest that something else has not quite been controlled for.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2023/08/16/bmj-2022-07...
The fact that ~10mGy seems to not have 1.0 in the confidence interval is kind of bothering to me. Normal annual background radiation should be about ~3.5mGy (so 10mGy is about 3 years normal background radiation) and getting an increased solid tumor mortality risk from normal radiation levels, does suggest that something else has not quite been controlled for.
Also the same group did the same paper on the same cohort before: https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5359?ijkey=9f35e31bf918...
This just seems to be updated with a slightly older population.