3 ms·
> The highest estimate for Chernobyl is 60,000 Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment ht
by natmaka 2y ago
> The highest estimate for Chernobyl is 60,000
Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
- wqaatwt 2y agoObviously I implied [mainstream/non-fringe] estimate.
- natmaka 2y agoAFAIK it is a well-known estimation, and 'fringe' may be considered weird given its main author's pedigree: 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...
- wqaatwt 2y ago> may be considered weird It may. I don’t think that’s the consensus view though and again something being well-known doesn’t make it the consensus. I’m not saying that WHO’s and IAEA‘s figures are perfect and flawless but they aren’t widely challenged either.