I'd love to know what that number is based on, and how the UN/WHO missed it
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
It looks like you can save some time/money and read the original Greenpeace report that this figure is based on here: https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/IMG/pdf/greenpeace-2006-the_chernobyl_catastrophe-consequences_on_human_health.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'll have to read this in more detail later, but it looks like those higher figures are estimates based on attributing all increases in a wide variety of diseases to Chernobyl for most of Europe
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @schneiderleonid @allaastakhova
Yes apparently her estimate is based on the word of someone she interviewed, which to me is less reliable than large-scale epidemiological assessments by independent bodies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @schneiderleonid @allaastakhova
Lol. Let me put it this way: if I wanted to know the impacts and experiences of an environmental catastrophe were, I'd ask a historian. If I wanted to quantify the number of deaths attributable to radiation across a large population, I'd ask the WHO
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
The numbers were not issued by a local authority. That's why you need an independent third party, of course, such as the World Health Organization team that included representatives from a wide range of nationalities, and very much unlike a single, local source
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.