An impressive read; that's a tough job to take on. No matter the quality of the researcher's work, someone, somewhere, is going to be inflamed by the conclusion

An impressive read; that's a tough job to take on. No matter the quality of the researcher's work, someone, somewhere, is going to be inflamed by the conclusion. It's also a super fun job to take on. Nuclear measurements can be very perceptive. Everyone I know in the business loves to have meaningful applications in the wider world. Our lab was a fun place to be immediately following Fukushima [1] (and Chernobyl, too, but that's before my time as a physicist). On the scale of technical reports, it's well-written, and intended to be read by semi-technical readers. The analysis covers a lot of ground on sources of uncertainty. They do a reasonable job handling uncertainties on the things I know about, and my only remaining concerns extend beyond my expertise. It's a worthy read; check it out! (as a bonus, in the appendices, you get to see photos of everything in the travel bag.) [1] http://www.npl.washington.edu/monitoring/node/1 http://www.npl.washington.edu/monitoring/node/1