I understand your reasoning, but my point is precicely that it's the way we talk about this that is important. This is the official story we had after tchernob

I understand your reasoning, but my point is precicely that it's the way we talk about this that is important. This is the official story we had after tchernobyl: https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/png/journal_televise_antenne2.png?1461740160* https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/png/journal_televise_antenne2.p... This is the reality we measured: https://img.lemde.fr/2016/04/26/0/0/956/687/688/0/60/0/cb64c47_7635-l6ilh5.PNG https://img.lemde.fr/2016/04/26/0/0/956/687/688/0/60/0/cb64c... It is worst than this, of course, because some plants accumulate radioactivity and we ate them. No recommendation had been given to the general population at all. The region with the most thyroid cancers in the 20 years following is the Isère, at the center east of this map. Now let's say we end up calculating that the actual number of cancers is, let's say, 100 more in France because of the cloud. It would not be much, and would not be worth acting on it: the flu would be more dangerous. That's not the problem. The problem is the way we communicate on this.