3 ms·

That's a strawman argument. An appeal to ridicule. Irrelevant where the report is made, what about the report itself: "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastroph

That's a strawman argument. An appeal to ridicule. Irrelevant where the report is made, what about the report itself: "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment"? Does this link make it more palatable to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Funny that that wikipedia link the OP posted actually contains the link to this page, but doesnt contain any information from within.

ceejayoz 11y ago
That link is much more palatable. > The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences. Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings. The review by M. I. Balonov published by the New York Academy of Sciences concludes that the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science.