Thread by @ShellenbergerMD

"Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers... show risks from Chernobyl radiation to be tiny"

Experts condemn "Manual for Survival" book by MIT historian Kate Brown for "playing into hands of conspiracy theorists"

This is an extremely important debunking — please share

1. "Manual for Survival "willfully ignores huge number of carefully conducted studies that have been subject to scrutiny by international panels of scientists ... & relies on articles from outside the peer-reviewed scientific literature & claims unsupported by mainstream science"

2. Scientists criticize news media saying "irresponsible reporting of Chernobyl & Fukushima, in which scientific evidence in excess of millions of scientific man hours is ignored, contributed to major health impact of both accidents: psychological effects of fear of radiation."

3. @MIT author of "Manual for Survival" falsely claims scientists ignored variation in radiation doses people received
“Totally untrue that we looked at ave. doses & don't consider pathways of uptake... hundreds of papers on this incl. on uptake from mushrooms, berries, milk etc"

@MIT 4. "Manual for Survival" is being "uncritically reviewed by non-scientists in top scientific journals" who appear to be unaware of the overwhelming body of actual scientific evidence that exists on Chernobyl.

@MIT 5. NOT AN ACADEMIC ISSUE

"Myths are doing damage to the recovery of the Chernobyl-affected areas of Ukraine & Belarus, & it is impossible to have a proper debate over nuclear's contribution to climate mitigation when it is based on urban myth rather than scientific evidence"

@MIT 6. For more on this story, please see:

forbes.com/sites/michaels…

@MIT 7. For more on Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, please see:

forbes.com/sites/michaels…