4 ms·

> All the people in all the nuclear accidents (or usage) ever that have died is There is no consensus about it. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob

• godelski 6y ago
  This is more like saying that there's no consensus about climate change. Sure, there are people that disagree, but it is small. And to quote the wiki you posted (from the opening) > The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences.Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and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.
  • natmaka 6y ago
    There is no consensus because the authors of the negative reviews are the authors of works heavily criticized in the book. What you consider as a consensus forms, in fact, a debate. This is not "some researchers publish, are criticized by the book, then the scientific community condemns the book, forming a consensus". Nope. It is in fact "some researchers publish, are criticized by the book, then the criticized researchers try to debunk the book, then the authors of the book answer to them". One of the critics is Monty Charles. His own work, done for the UNSCEAR (a pro-nuke UN agency) in 2006, is heavily criticized in the book. He then criticized this book. Proof: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245759797_United_Nations_Scientific_Committee_on_the_Effects_of_Atomic_Radiation_UNSCEAREffects_of_Ionizing_Radiation_UNSCEAR_2006_Report_to_the_General_Assembly_with_scientific_annexes_United_Nations_New_York https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245759797_United_Na... Another critic was published by Mona Dreicer, who worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (another UN pro-nuke agency) and the book criticized her work. Proof: https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/38-3 https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/38-3 Another one is M. Balonov, long-time contributor of reports published by UN-agencies, and the book criticizes his work. Proof: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ S. Jargin, another author of a negative review, sees flaws in each and every publication criticizing a powerful industry. For example asbestos is in his opinion not a concern and its use unduly prohibited. Proof: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_mesothelioma_and_lung_cancer_a_comment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_... Here is another sample of his research (is it necessary to further comment?) : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergei_Jargin/publication/327884445_Alcohol_condom_use_and_sexually_transmitted_infections/links/5bab542d45851574f7e67f60/Alcohol-condom-use-and-sexually-transmitted-infections.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergei_Jargin/publicati... His 'debate' with Rosamund Katz and Janette Sherman is surrealistic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Afraid_of_Volume_1181_of_the_New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_Under_Threat_the_Nuclear_Establishment_Plays_Dirty https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278732482_Who_Is_Af... The book authors' credentials seems pretty clear to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...