I was in Kiev when the Chernobyl accident happened.
The incident was in May. In the summer, I remember seeing people selling mushrooms on the side of the road in the country, as they do every summer. But that summer, the mushrooms were unusually large. Nobody would stop to buy, the mushrooms looked WRONG.
Then in the fall, the chestnuts starting falling from the many chestnut trees in Kiev (emblem of Kiev is chestnut leaf). Usually kids would gather chestnuts, but these chestnuts were lying in the street, half again the usual size. They looked unnatural.
My own body responded even faster -- that early summer I had oozing sores on my lips. I'd wake up in the morning with my mouth glued shut from the dried ooze. I washed my lips with salt water to dissolve the ooze.
She doesn't mention what methodology and practices she used to reach her conclusions. Did she study the same type of bugs in the same type of environment and climate in an area that was not close to Chernobyl or a nuclear plant? Did she take steps to avoid confirmation bias, such as double blind sampling? How did she gather and analyse her statistics? Without reasonable explanations for those and more her data is not sound.
The incident was in May. In the summer, I remember seeing people selling mushrooms on the side of the road in the country, as they do every summer. But that summer, the mushrooms were unusually large. Nobody would stop to buy, the mushrooms looked WRONG.
Then in the fall, the chestnuts starting falling from the many chestnut trees in Kiev (emblem of Kiev is chestnut leaf). Usually kids would gather chestnuts, but these chestnuts were lying in the street, half again the usual size. They looked unnatural.
My own body responded even faster -- that early summer I had oozing sores on my lips. I'd wake up in the morning with my mouth glued shut from the dried ooze. I washed my lips with salt water to dissolve the ooze.