3 ms·
I read the article, and looked at his bio. He is not a nuclear scientist nor a analytics professional. His previous articles are pro nuke, which is fine, but to
by SCAQTony 6y ago
I read the article, and looked at his bio. He is not a nuclear scientist nor a analytics professional. His previous articles are pro nuke, which is fine, but to take his words wholesale with no bibliography or links is asking too much for this reader.
Most of all, he quantifies stress and exhaustion as a primary cause of death for those evacuated. How did he figure that out?
- Factfull 6y agoDo you mean the author of the article or the study? The author provides links to the study. You can also just google NREFS.
- SCAQTony 6y agoYes, he did. The NREFs page was an Overview, which contained links to a lecture, background on the study, and and about thirty bibliography links. I suggest his opinions, at the very least, have asterisks and links to specific study as to how he arrived at his opinions. http://www.nrefs.org/publications/ http://www.nrefs.org/publications/
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoYeah, I thought this article was decent in some respects, but the larger issue was that it completely ignored human nature when it comes to risk assessment. Does he honestly think it would have worked to tell those living near Fukushima, "Don't worry, on average you'll only lose about 3 weeks of life, so don't worry about it!" Of course, very few people are hit by the "average": most people have no I'll effects while others develop cancer and die soon. Taking a purely mathematical approach to risk assessment, and using that assessment alone to guide public policy, is unwise.
- rhn_mk1 6y agoThe analysis was related to both sides of the coin. I imagine the presentation would offer alternatives: stay and lose 3 weeks, evacuate and lose 4 weeks, so which one do you worry about more?