> And here the implications is that human reasoning backfired because we judged the impact of nuclear accident wrong Yes, that is what he claimed. > It is com

> And here the implications is that human reasoning backfired because we judged the impact of nuclear accident wrong Yes, that is what he claimed. > It is combined with a "the boar lives there well because it has no fear, we can live there as well". No, he did not claim that. > That comes from the first sentence, that health risks from fear of radiation exceed the actual health risks from the radiation. The existence of boars is not being used to support the claim that fear of radiation exceed the actual health risks. Rather, that claim is being asserted independently.