Our inability to quantify such risks means they might exist. Next...
=======================================
May / may not - who cares. Also you are carrying forth a mathematical error in computing probabilities.
You can't just take a risk % for an individual and multiply it by the number of people in a population. I know it is commonly done; but it is actually mathematically erroneous to do so.
For example. My probability of getting heads on an honest coin flip is 1/2. So if I flip a coin twice, then my probability of getting at least one head is 100% = 50% probability/flip X 2 flips. But that is just plain WRONG!!!
In fact, I have a 25% chance of getting 2 heads, a 50% chance of getting 1 head, and a 25% chance of no heads, if you do the calculation correctly. So quit playing with stattistics until you learn some remedial high school mathematics.
Whether there is / is not an effect at very low doses, we know one thing, the effect is small and less than the background exposure.
Fukushima, Chernobyl, nuclear power in general, nuclear weapons testing in the '50s are ALL WAY WAY LESS than what Mother Nature exposes us to. Mother Nature is still the number one source of ionizing radiation exposure to the average citizen:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
If you assume no cancers at 0 exposure, and then apply LNT to the dose due to Mother Nature; you get a cancer rate that EXCEEDS the actual background cancer rate by a large factor. We've known for some time that the relationship isn't linear.
PamW