that's not what these researchers are saying, and the warped coverage is making worse. If you where a worker at Chernobyl uneffected by the accident, but lost y

that's not what these researchers are saying, and the warped coverage is making worse. If you where a worker at Chernobyl uneffected by the accident, but lost your job, and then couldn't afford dental care, and your child got an abscessed tooth that went septic and they died, this methodology would count it as an "infant mortality caused by nuclear accidents". Their (several levels of) indirect grouping to make an impactful headline is what I object to; which is too bad because the real story here is the more subtle but important and very real uneven and long-term impact of huricanes is under measured.