Talk:Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

The following text appears to be original research:

"Specifically, the review appears to be far from scathing of the methods."

"The fact of deliberately choosing control groups which they judge not to have been exposed for the purpose of comparison appears to contradict Monbiot's assertion that Yablokov simply assumed all increased deaths were caused by the Chernobyl accident. The review states that excess deaths recorded in the unexposed areas cited in the book were not alleged by Yablokov to be caused by the Chernobyl accident."

None of the sources state this analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.68.141.17 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced this original research with a summary of what the two reviews in that journal actually do say. Fuzzypeg ★ 07:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

The article as it stands is unbalanced. Much is being made of Monbiot's views and the review in the Radiation Protection Dosimetry. But there is also at least one other review, and Caldicott's assessment here. Johnfos (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to give a better summary of both reviews from Radiat Prot Dosimetry, which I believe are both more reliable and more significant than Monbiot's appraisal. There's still room for someone to flesh out some of Caldecott's response to Monbiot, although I'm not sure how necessary that is here -- her points are really of more significance to the Chernobyl disaster article, under the "Assessing the health effects" section. I haven't figured out how Caldecott rates in terms of WP's assessment of reliability. If we can't cite her, we may be able to cite sources that she cites. Fuzzypeg ★ 07:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Caldicott's assessment? Are you joking? That's how your paragraph sounds to me: "Much is being made of Dawkins's views and the review in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. But there is also at least one other review, and Ken Ham's assessment." --Tweenk (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy is profoundly specious. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, but Monbiot is a journalist, not a scientist, much less an specialist on the effects of radiation on health. Caldicott at least is a physician. Sincerely, I'd leave Monbiot out altogether and let only the three expert reviews stay. Monbiot is a pundit, someone with no scientific training whatsoever. If Caldicott is a joke for you, Monbiot must be a sad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.129.5 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a well-informed pundit over a long time anti-nuclear propagandist any day. Specifically, at least Monbiot's sources say what he claims they say, as opposed to Caldicott whose sources often state the opposite of her conclusions, or do not exist at all. --Tweenk (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this book not condemned as pseudoscience?[edit]

It is rather obvious from the reviews that the book is barely scientific in content and contains mainly the fantasies of its authors, who can't even consistently cite figures from other publications. Yablokov is a former president of Greenpeace Russia, so there's no surprise about the content and quality of the book. It is also very obvious from his other activities and memberships that Ian Fairlie is a rabid anti-nuclear propagandist (and judging from his quoted comment also a conspiracy theorist) and offers uncritical praise for this book just because it suits his own broader agenda. Given all that, why is this book not explicitly condemned as pseudoscience? Is Greenpeace such a sacred cow that every stupid thing they endorse must be turned into a POV matter instead of being exposed as rubbish on the basis of its (lack of) merits? --Tweenk (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source for your last sentence above, then maybe we could add it to the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In July 1989, at a press conference on board the "Rainbow Warrior" in Leningrad, the Deputy Chairman of the USSR Supreme Soviet's Environmental Committee, Alexy Yablokov, formally announced the establishment of Greenpeace USSR as the first independent international environmental organization in the Soviet Union. By October a staff of 10 people, three Westerners and seven Soviets - were established in a downtown Moscow office." from http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/vrml/rw/text/t12.html John Stumbles (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]