Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by NovemberWhiskey 823 days ago
But, you know, probably fewer than accounted for natural variations in the background level caused by different rock types in the area or exposure to residual fly ash from thermal power plants, right?
1 comments

Why do you imagine that point has any relevance?
It seems fairly obvious that if the influence of a nuclear accident on cancer rates is dominated by other factors, one should look to mitigate those other factors before worrying about the nuclear accident as a contributor.
That's not how regulation works. One does not get a free pass to cause harm just because something else is causing more harm.