chefboss... und auch mal die Comments des Artikels gelesen... scheint niemand wirklich zu unterstützen... die Studie bzw. die Pressemeldung dazu lesen sich auch wie als ob es von "irgendwem" beauftragt wurde.
Zitat von wikiplugz (Kommentarbereich des obigen Artikels)
This is a very seriously flawed report, with much left out... How did this get through? If you do the maths from the figures here... Land Area of UK = 241,590 sq kms. Area of study = 1964 sq kms. i.e Study area is 0.8% of total land area BUT see below** That area has 430 cases per 35 years or 12.2/year. Given this incidence, the rate in UK proper should be 1525/year, but is in fact reported here as 500. This represents a 3 fold increase in the wider study area. How did they miss this? And they show it with their published figures.. If that is not a 'cluster' I do not know what is.. Or did they mean to say this study was a classic 'clusterf...k'??. This raises the questions.. 1) Are these figures right and if so 2) Do they think we are as stupid as them? if so, 3) WTF????????????? **These raw figures do not even consider the population densities in the so called study areas which, I am guessing, knowing where some of them are, are much LOWER than average and therefore represent POOR sampling technique. Looks to me like an exhaustive (but very sloppy) white wash job with a poor quality piece of flannel, behind a very thin layer of smoke, using cracked mirrors for guidance. Finally, what about this? "But after nearly a quarter-century of industry denial, the New York Academy of Sciences has published, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, the definitive catalog and analysis. Drawing on some 5,000 studies, three Russian scientists have placed the ultimate death toll at 985,000." Hhhmmmmmm!!