@ThorsomeTarmukas So the WHO lied, but your study is 100% factual? Even anti-nuclear greenpeace puts their estimate at an already-ridiculous 90,000. 1 million death casualties is laughably silly.
The article you are sourcing is saying that the main conclusions of Yablokov are an odd mixture of established facts and uncorroborated claims of mass mortality. That one study you have sourced is at odds with the WHO, the IAEA, UNSCEAR, UNDP, and UNICEF. The article itself states that the study is overestimating by at least 800,000.
Sounds like you support carbon taxes if you want to include externalities. I do too.
But are you suggesting we should hold all power companies' feet to the fire and force them to insure against all disasters?
27
@ThorsomeTarmukas So the WHO lied, but your study is 100% factual? Even anti-nuclear greenpeace puts their estimate at an already-ridiculous 90,000. 1 million death casualties is laughably silly.
From your "new and controversial research": http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/32/2/181/pdf;jsessionid=2B8C7FDF36C97E329A67E6B3F3450412.ip-10-40-2-120
The article you are sourcing is saying that the main conclusions of Yablokov are an odd mixture of established facts and uncorroborated claims of mass mortality. That one study you have sourced is at odds with the WHO, the IAEA, UNSCEAR, UNDP, and UNICEF. The article itself states that the study is overestimating by at least 800,000.
Sounds like you support carbon taxes if you want to include externalities. I do too.
But are you suggesting we should hold all power companies' feet to the fire and force them to insure against all disasters?