[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I do not agree that Chernobyl was overblown as a disaster.

A 30 Sq KM radiated exclusion zone, up to an estimated 50,000 deaths among the rescue workers and others due to long effects (WHO).

No, that is not even close to being correct. THE WHO REPORT VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT IS NOT TRUE. and I even linked the short version in this thread, and quoted the essential parts.

I guess I'll do it again.

I'm sorry for the tone, but I've just been recently been explaining this to several different people. It seems there's just a general inability to read reports in the world.

Here is the report itself:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Boo.../chernobyl.pdf


Here is the part you are looking for:

How many people died as a result of the accident and how many more are likely to die in the future?
...
The number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl accident has been of paramount interest to the general public, scientists, the mass media, and politicians. Claims have been made that tens or even hundreds of thousands of persons have died as a result of the accident. These claims are highly exaggerated. Confusion about the impact of Chernobyl on mortality has arisen owing to the fact that, in the years since 1986, thousands of emergency and recovery operation workers as well as people who lived in ‘contaminated’ territories have died of diverse natural causes that are not attributable to radiation. However, widespread expectations of ill health and a tendency to attribute all health problems to exposure to radiation have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much higher.

The number of deaths due to acute radiation syndrome (ARS) during the first year following the accident is well documented. According to UNSCEAR (2000), ARS was diagnosed in 134 emergency workers. In many cases the ARS was complicated by extensive beta radiation skin burns and sepsis. Among these workers, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Two more persons had died at Unit 4 from injuries unrelated to radiation, and one additional death was thought to have been due to a coronary thrombosis. Nineteen more have died in 1987–2004 of various causes; however their deaths are not necessarily — and in some cases are certainly not — directly attributable to radiation exposure. Among the general population exposed to the Chernobyl radioactive fallout, however, the radiation doses were relatively low, and ARS and associated fatalities did not occur.

The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposurers, the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers...

[QUOTE]

Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age (my note: about 4000 cases, with 99% recovery rate, 9 deaths, it's in the report), there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations.

Most of recovery operation workers and people living in the contaminated territories received relatively low whole-body radiation doses, comparable to background radiation levels accumulated over the 20 year period since the accident.

It should be noted that the average doses received by residents of the territories ‘contaminated’ by Chernobyl fallout are generally lower than those received by people who live in some areas of high natural background radiation in India, Iran, Brazil and China (100–200 mSv in 20 years).

And for those of you who will take the short version (of the same report), here it is, again:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

And I quote:

As of mid-2005 fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster

So yeah, many people will have their lives shortened, eventually. Most of those have not (based on statistical estimations) happened yet, 25 years after the fact. We're propably talking a death count of something in the hundreds. Which is of course notable, but I'd still take something like that every year if it meant we could rid ourselves completely of coal (which kills hundreds of people every bloody day globally.)