3 ms·

Ah, the infamous NYAS hit job. It wasn't even peer reviewed, yet it was published on behalf of a supposedly scientific community. That should tell you everythin

by evilos 3y ago

Ah, the infamous NYAS hit job. It wasn't even peer reviewed, yet it was published on behalf of a supposedly scientific community. That should tell you everything you need to know. Meanwhile, the UN Scientific Commissions and Harvard/Kyiv medical studies have found no increase in cancers due to Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/ The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary and was only done because of the illogical fear of radiation that is spread by anti nuke orgs. That blood is on the hands of those who uphold and spread these lies.

natmaka 3y ago
This book is an analysis of scientific literature, and the authors pedigrees seem convincing 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... Most authors of negative critics are authors of reports this book criticized, and other ones are weirdos. The book's authors answered to all critics. 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. 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. Another one is M. Balonov, long-time contributor of reports published by UN-agencies, and the book criticizes his work. 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 ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_mesothelioma_and_lung_cancer_a_comment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_... ) 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 UN is notoriously pro-nuke, and the UNSCEAR only composed of nuclear-energy related nations (exploiting reactors, extracting uranium...). About the WHO: http://independentwho.org/ http://independentwho.org/
natmaka 3y ago
> The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary During such a disaster very few are able to assess the real risk, in real time, and even less to predict it. Panic ensues. This is intrinsic to the underlying physical and biological phenomenon, and therefore to nuclear. > illogical fear of radiation If there is nothing to fear how comes Japan disburses hundred of billions in order to clean up the nuclear mess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup

by evilos 3y ago

natmaka 3y ago

This book is an analysis of scientific literature, and the authors pedigrees seem convincing 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... Most authors of negative critics are authors of reports this book criticized, and other ones are weirdos. The book's authors answered to all critics. 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. 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. Another one is M. Balonov, long-time contributor of reports published by UN-agencies, and the book criticizes his work. 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 ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_mesothelioma_and_lung_cancer_a_comment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321527973_Asbestos_... ) 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 UN is notoriously pro-nuke, and the UNSCEAR only composed of nuclear-energy related nations (exploiting reactors, extracting uranium...). About the WHO: http://independentwho.org/ http://independentwho.org/

natmaka 3y ago

> The Fukushima evacuation was wholly unnecessary During such a disaster very few are able to assess the real risk, in real time, and even less to predict it. Panic ensues. This is intrinsic to the underlying physical and biological phenomenon, and therefore to nuclear. > illogical fear of radiation If there is nothing to fear how comes Japan disburses hundred of billions in order to clean up the nuclear mess? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup