Theres some studies done of the effects of Chernobyl over the years since. Of note are the WHO and the Chernobyl Tissue Bank.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.chernobyltissuebank.com

I went to a talk by Prof Geraldine Thomas, of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank and Imperial College London, sharing her insights and research into radiation and its effects on the body. The key takeaway from the talk is to take into account the type of release, what radionuclides were exposed to the public and their half-life, and then what the passage of that particular element is through the body to determine what damage can be done.

A notable example is of Iodine-131 causing of thyroid lesions and cancers in the direct aftermath of an event because of its short half life of alpha decay directly into tissue that bioaccumulates Iodine, keeping the alpha decay focussed on a very specific tissue. Other heavier elements tend to (I am not a biologist or nuclear scientist, paraphrasing from a talk a couple years ago) can leave the body without being bioaccumulated, having only released 'tolerable' amounts of alpha decay into a broad area of tissue.

It would be interesting to know if those "unusual cancers" were in some part a result of radionuclide exposure from Chernobyl or the result of other factors. But I — a nobody with a causal subject matter interest — would be hesitant to suggest that there was causation in absence of a hypothesis based on biology tied to the known Chernobyl emissions. Either way, we can find out more about radiations effect on biology if a study takes place — or if there is already one out there?

the reports you're referring to are very docile to say the least.

"Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."

Except that according to official numbers Belarus, which after the explosion was right down the wind from it, has overall 1.5 times higher cancer rates than Russia or Ukraine have (Russia and Ukraine have the same rate) with some cancer rates being 2x-3x in the Gomel and Mogilev region - the regions right next to the Chernobyl. Such cancer picture is a new development compare to pre-Chernobyl years.

>It would be interesting to know if those "unusual cancers" were in some part a result of radionuclide exposure from Chernobyl or the result of other factors.

Anybody is welcome to suggest such "other factors" which would explain the overall rate increase after Chernobyl with the distribution of rate so that it clearly increases in the regions closer to Chernobyl, while these factors must also be Belarus specific compare to Russia and Ukraine.

But at the same time, radiation and exposure is more nuanced than when and where an event happened that might coincide with some later generalised health effects. Not all radiation is the same and radiation exposure does not always lead to negative health effects. Cancers occurring in a geo-specific region in correlation to an event don't point to one source.

The radionuclides expelled from Chernobyl are known and traceable, not being found in nature they can be detected easily. Knowing their decay chain over time and, later, the bioaccumulation of those isotopes (based on how people will come in to contact with them) you can start to figure out how tissues that bioaccumulate or come into contact with an alpha source could react.

What I am saying is, it's important to understand that its not just about 'radiation' may equal 'cancers'. We know how to understand this deeper than that, on how to measure and calculate health effects based on the specific isotopes and their related exposures on tissues, primarily internally — because alpha decay has the highest energy but is easily absorbed by paper or the outer epidermis, to do damage it has to be in close proximity to sensitive tissues. So its important to stick to those more calculable and verifiable hypothesis rather than broad 'radiation' and 'cancer' labels.

The Belarus officials like to play with the numbers to get money from different foreign organizations. I'm not saying there are no health implication from radiation fallout in these regions but x2 sounds like statistics are used to drive someone's agenda. Instead if blaming drinking and smoking (and trying to solve the societal ailments that are causing that) they blame radiation, because it brings them money.

you can google it yourself. NCBI has a bunch of works on Belarus situation. If anything, real situation coming from people sounds even more gloom than official numbers.

I specifically mentioned Russia and Ukraine because such factors like drinking, smoking, food, genetics, lifestyle/habbits are very similar across all 3 countries and thus can't explain those post-Chernobyl appeared high cancer rates in Belarus.

The Russian diet also played a huge part. Bioaccumulation of iodine depends on how much iodine is in your diet previously. That's why the Japanese (fish-eaters with lots of iodine) shrug off radioactive iodine while Russians (bread-eaters) readily absorb and are damaged by it. If you are worried about a recent nuclear incident, a meal of imported cod is a good defense.

I think it's more interesting that people were so used to Soviet denials of any disaster they now remember this as one of them. They were slow to report the accident and slow to acknowledge its scope and severity. On the other hand, it was perfectly clear to Western observers that a serious accident had taken place, you can see that in the ABC report from April 28, 1986 linked in my other comment. I can't imagine any reasonable person thinking this was 'western misdirection'.

A UN IAEA team visited the site on May 8th, unthinkable in pre-Gorbachev times. Gorbachev was elected Secretary General only a year before.

> A UN IAEA team visited the site on May 8th, unthinkable in pre-Gorbachev times

The agreement by the USSR to permit IAEA inspections was signed in February 1985, a month before Mr Gorbachev was appointed.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/02/22/Soviets-to-allow-ins...

These are inspections by IAEA Safeguards, their main goal is to track fissile material for non-proliferation treaty compliance purposes. They did not oblige the Soviets to allow the IAEA to show up in case of an accident and I'm not sure if that particular plant was supposed to have any inspectors visit at all. Here's an update from August '85 that gives you an idea of how things were going:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/06/world/soviet-said-to-appro...

Inviting the Director General of the IAEA to the accident site was independent of that.

I lived in Gdansk at the time. My canary developed these red bumps on its chest and died a few days after.

I was 7 years old and still remember crying to this day.