I don't think this article will help the average person understand science.
It is basically describing the difference between primary research (Mousseau) and meta-analysis (UNSCEAR), which is combing through primary research in order to reach conclusions. Meta-analysis always lags what primary research shows, but isolated bits of primary research could lead one to erroneous conclusions (which is why we do meta-analysis).
Here's a related Fukushima piece.
I still feel that it is on simple evolutionary grounds unlikely that this reported 'damage', if real, could be in any way a problem: these species are living in natural competition and any damaged individuals get weeded out before long, just like those carrying unfavourable mutations due to other causes.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDelete