3 ms·

Thank you, that is indeed a source and I have raised my estimate of the probability larger casualties slightly. (For the record: above excerpt is from an articl

Thank you, that is indeed a source and I have raised my estimate of the probability larger casualties slightly. (For the record: above excerpt is from an article in the online magazine CounterPunch [1], which itself refers to the 2009 book [2].) However, its methodology and rigour have been criticised [3]. As I am not an expert in this area I cannot evaluate the source directly, but several general heuristics apply. The source is a single book. (I am aware that the book claims to rely on numerous non-english sources, but I do not believe that they make the same claims.) The book relies on observational epidemiological data, which is generally hard to get right, and dose-response curves seem to be not analysed (seeing a relationship between doses and effect sizes is a good way to exclude spurious correlations). Finally, since the article mentions Yablokov's prior occupation I will also note that he founded and lead the Soviet chapter of Greenpeace, an organisation with a strong anti-nuclear position. So I do not think that this is strong evidence. (But as I said earlier, I do currently consider it weak evidence.) In any case, the book claims one million deaths, not multiple millions, and only a fraction of those is attributed to thyroid cancer. [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/02/russian-takeover-of-chernobyl-poses-grave-health-threat/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/02/russian-takeover-of-... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110419144513/http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110419144513/http://www.strahl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Reviews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

spopejoy 5y ago
You're cherry-picking negative responses from the wikipedia article, as opposed to the following: > The IAEA/WHO have often sought to justify their dismissal of eastern European epidemiological studies by citing questionable scientific practices: but epidemiology is not an exact science, and the same shortcomings exist in western studies uncriticised by the IAEA. The IAEA also point to shortcomings with pre-Chernobyl Soviet cancer registries, but cancer registries in western countries had similar issues at that time. Indeed, where is the criticism for the IEAE and WHO applying a very selective "conservativism" about epidemiological research, much like big tobacco and DuPont? They're the reason nuke fanboys make risible claims like "< 100 people died because of Chernobyl" and don't get laughed out of the room. Pointing out that the author was affiliated with Greenpeace without noting the systemic bias of nuclear organizations against epidimiological data is questionable.

spopejoy 5y ago

You're cherry-picking negative responses from the wikipedia article, as opposed to the following: > The IAEA/WHO have often sought to justify their dismissal of eastern European epidemiological studies by citing questionable scientific practices: but epidemiology is not an exact science, and the same shortcomings exist in western studies uncriticised by the IAEA. The IAEA also point to shortcomings with pre-Chernobyl Soviet cancer registries, but cancer registries in western countries had similar issues at that time. Indeed, where is the criticism for the IEAE and WHO applying a very selective "conservativism" about epidemiological research, much like big tobacco and DuPont? They're the reason nuke fanboys make risible claims like "< 100 people died because of Chernobyl" and don't get laughed out of the room. Pointing out that the author was affiliated with Greenpeace without noting the systemic bias of nuclear organizations against epidimiological data is questionable.