Of course the study was “highly influential,” because it fit the narrative of environmental doomsayers, whose default position is always to accept an alarmist finding, no matter how thin or incomplete the evidence is. The story goes on to recount the weaknesses in the original research and the various critics of the original alarmist study. The critics were always ignored or shouted down by the alarmists or the “precautionary principle” types who argued that we needed to regulate more contamination threats right now because “we can’t take a chance,” etc. Remind you of any other particular issue? (Yes, this could be a multiple-choice question, with several right answers.)
Nothing to see here, just don’t stop believing.
