The story also goes on to say about how the deaths caused by the soviet-era disaster cause is disputed. How is that a pertinent thing to add?
It’s not disputed those are just different parts of the same IAEA report. 2 people died in the explosion, 28 of radiation poisoning, 1 from a heart attack, so 31 known, then 19 with high radiation exposure died years later for ambiguous reasons, so 50 potential direct accident deaths. And then they estimated about 4,000 as the total eventual cancer deaths.
…but none of that pertains to the current situation.
Custodianship of the site is a duty inherited from Moscow at the fall of the Soviet Union. I would say in raising it without making that clear might cause a reader to blame Ukraine for it, and not the government of the nation they are fighting. Yes, Russia and the USSR are different entities, but it’s clear Putin sees the USSR as a model to strive for.
Intentional or not, I saw it as prejudicing the reader against Ukraine with irrelevant information out of context.
It’s not disputed those are just different parts of the same IAEA report. 2 people died in the explosion, 28 of radiation poisoning, 1 from a heart attack, so 31 known, then 19 with high radiation exposure died years later for ambiguous reasons, so 50 potential direct accident deaths. And then they estimated about 4,000 as the total eventual cancer deaths.
…but none of that pertains to the current situation.
Custodianship of the site is a duty inherited from Moscow at the fall of the Soviet Union. I would say in raising it without making that clear might cause a reader to blame Ukraine for it, and not the government of the nation they are fighting. Yes, Russia and the USSR are different entities, but it’s clear Putin sees the USSR as a model to strive for.
Intentional or not, I saw it as prejudicing the reader against Ukraine with irrelevant information out of context.