I gotta say, I’m totally confused. Some of these articles imply there is a minuscule risk even in the worst possible case, whereas others imply a nearly inevitable adverse outcome of sizable proportions.
I can’t square the former claims with what the Prime Minister himself has already said and the precautions being taken. The PM has every incentive to underplay the risks involved so as to avoid any widespread panic; he also has access to the best scientific advice, so I can’t believe policy is being driven by the fear-mongering claims of environmental extremists. So it seems like “the truth” is closer to the latter assessment than the former. That’s not a comforting thought.