3 ms·

I'm happy to see you already got an answer :) Edit: Oh, it's gone now? It was a comment disputing the Colorado reference. There are more comments above. For wh

by onli 7y ago

I'm happy to see you already got an answer :) Edit: Oh, it's gone now? It was a comment disputing the Colorado reference. There are more comments above. For what it's worth, I smelled what's up right when he talked about chernobyl right below the The Shocking Truth subheadline. The way the deaths are calculated is highly disputed, and he does not reflect that properly, instead presenting the pro-nuclear viewpoint as truth. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19927377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19927377 links an article that covers that in a way more balanced way.

cygx 7y ago
Oh, it's gone now? I (temporarily) removed it because I claimed the referenced article only talked about cancer death rates instead of cancer rates. That was a mistake on my part.
BorRagnarok 7y ago
I'm afraid the link to the article has died or isn't available otherwise, here's the archive.org version https://web.archive.org/web/20180430120502/http://time.com/5255663/chernobyl-disaster-book-anniversary/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180430120502/http://time.com/5...