[IamIan]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Chernobyl exclusion zone, no? Or are we shooting at moving targets again?

Yes the whole macroscopic discussion is about the Chernobyl Exclusion zone .. but that specific reference was a more narrow aspect of that (* see bellow).

I'm sorry if I have not communicated this effectively yet .. The exclusion zone is not one set black or white or thing... as if it were all equally safe or equally harmful .. this is not a pro-people are right or wrong , or Con-people are right or wrong .. both biased sides are flawed , and at best inaccurate .. a middle view that sees both the pros and the cons accurately is better (my 2 bits).

If a Pro/Con advocate claims a single one sided picture of the entire zone .. such as a pro advocate who might claim 'no evidence of any harm' .. that is incorrect or at best inaccurate .. equally so , as a con advocate who might claim it's a 'dead-zone'... Both extremes are at best inaccurate .. if not flat out wrong .. and pointing out things to the pro doesn't make one a con , anymore than pointing things out to the con makes one a pro.

Originally Posted by IamIan

The event area exposure samples still ranged from as low as natural (good) .. to as high as about ~1,127x 'natural' .. stop by the 'Cafe Pripyat' for a coffee and your ~39x natural exposure rate .. or visit a loved one in the 'Pripyat cemetery' for your ~64x natural exposure rate

(* From above)
The Specific quote of mine you referenced in post #5 was referring to those higher rate (more harm) areas... You referenced that with a link about some of the lowest harm areas of the exclusion zone .. as if the two are equivalent or interchangeable ... Or as if the safety of the lowest harm areas has any effect on how harmful the highest harm areas are .. That doesn't fit with what I was describing at all.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Certainly. It's also good to know what we're being accurate about.

100% agree.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

At one obvious extreme, it probably wouldn't be a real good idea to spend much time inside the reactor building.

Of course .. but .. It's inaccurate to paint the picture of it only being in the reactor building itself that is a high enough risk of harm to be avoided ... There are other places outside of the reactor building that also have rates of exposure soo high as to be significantly harmful for any long term period of time... (Some high enough I would personally call it vast .. but that's of course entirely subjective).

We have devices that can measure this .. and if we choose , those areas can be mapped in far greater resolution , and than as those areas continue to shrink over time .. they can continue to revise the cost effectiveness of doing more advanced/modern additional remediation efforts to those targeted areas of higher risk.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

At the other, we have claims made by groups like Greenpeace, yet a set of observations which contradict those claims. So what should a reasonable person do, ignore the evidence, or shift paradigms?

A reasonable person should not ignore evidence .. All of it Pro and Con .. should be accurately examined.

Those who focus on Pro advocacy very often inaccurately present the cons .. those who focus on the Con advocacy very often inaccurately present the pros.

A Reasonable person (not blinded by bias) can see that there is allot of solid evidence that some parts of the exclusion zone still have very high rates of harm .. and that reasonable person can also see that there are areas in that 'exclusion zone' that are at such low levels to be extremely low risk of harm, even over very long periods of exposure ... The reasonable person sees both pros and cons accurately .. and sees the inaccuracies and flaws of those biased advocates of either side (Pro or Con).