Comment on A cow is more likely to kill you than a shark

• GargleBlaster@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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

  source
• marcos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Citations aren’t support.

  source

  • Forester@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Did you read any of the citations and find they disagreed with the journals findings?

    source