This missive is scientifically naive and is guilty of "cherry picking" statistics to support their case. The WHO data is misused citing Class 2B possible (0-100%) (with >250 other environmental risks) as opposed to probable 2A (50-100%) carcinogenic risk. The film confuses epidemiological data with that of experiment, and equivocates them. Anecdotal evidence is used to support their case but shows no causal nexus. The film and its proponents have an agenda that is very unclear about the actual radiation-physics issues, and banter scientific jargon to credit and authenticate their case. This film is a real disappointment and disservice to the integrity of the scientific exploration of this issue.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
