Sooo you base this on an opinion piece disguised as journal article in a low impact journal by a guy that has, let’s say interesting views on radiation damage and global warming.
Sentences like “It is exploited in attempts to strangle development of atomic energy, the cleanest, safest and practically inexhaustible means to meet the worlds energy needs” or retelling of the events from his perspective or constant self citation make it a definitive opionion piece.
And I looked at random papers that cited this paper. Some are not even listed anymore and most others I randomly selected (~20) cited the paper for random facts (“release of around 70 tons of nuclear fuel”, “radioresistant microbes can tolerate a high radiation incidence”, “many of these communities have not, and will not, be repopulated due to the current radiation”) or outright contradicted the paper (“[his] assumptions [about cancer incidence] are in conflict with observations from Russia…”).
The amount of citations a paper has is absolutely useless information without context to whether the citations support/contrast or are incidental
Sooo you base this on an opinion piece disguised as journal article in a low impact journal by a guy that has, let’s say interesting views on radiation damage and global warming.
96 cited references supporting a thesis is a opinion piece?
Sentences like “It is exploited in attempts to strangle development of atomic energy, the cleanest, safest and practically inexhaustible means to meet the worlds energy needs” or retelling of the events from his perspective or constant self citation make it a definitive opionion piece.
And I looked at random papers that cited this paper. Some are not even listed anymore and most others I randomly selected (~20) cited the paper for random facts (“release of around 70 tons of nuclear fuel”, “radioresistant microbes can tolerate a high radiation incidence”, “many of these communities have not, and will not, be repopulated due to the current radiation”) or outright contradicted the paper (“[his] assumptions [about cancer incidence] are in conflict with observations from Russia…”).
The amount of citations a paper has is absolutely useless information without context to whether the citations support/contrast or are incidental
Citations aren’t support.
Did you read any of the citations and find they disagreed with the journals findings?