Well said. I was annoyed by the lack of specific information for exactly the reasons you mentioned More specific estimates of safe distances versus collider po

Well said. I was annoyed by the lack of specific information for exactly the reasons you mentioned More specific estimates of safe distances versus collider power would be helpful, same too about the nature and type of radioactive byproducts in soil (what elements would be expected to become radioactive along with their half-lifes, etc.). Sometimes I think it ought to compulsory for scientists to study philosophy—at least its parts that deal with logic, language and semantics. Philosophy defines near —like good— as a 'simple notion' that cannot be subdivided into simpler terms. The word needs qualifiers/quantifiers (figures, distances, amounts) for it to be useful—info that the paper was overly vague about or omitted to specify.