> I'm thinking about what I've read on social media (twitter, reddit, etc) about the event.
Social media is social media. It requires critical thinking skills to navigate what you can trust versus what you cannot. I would have put this point in your GP, though. The GP otherwise reads like it has an agenda.
> relevant authorities do not seem to agree with this.
They're (probably) a more reliable source than social media, so I'd have to refer to the relevant authorities.
Social media (likely) isn't out there gathering soil samples, air quality metrics, and water quality metrics in a uniform or scientific method that would qualify 'social media' to make a judgement call about the impact of the disaster.
Social media is social media. It requires critical thinking skills to navigate what you can trust versus what you cannot. I would have put this point in your GP, though. The GP otherwise reads like it has an agenda.
> relevant authorities do not seem to agree with this.
They're (probably) a more reliable source than social media, so I'd have to refer to the relevant authorities.
Social media (likely) isn't out there gathering soil samples, air quality metrics, and water quality metrics in a uniform or scientific method that would qualify 'social media' to make a judgement call about the impact of the disaster.