Are you accounting for all the kids born in Easter Europe in the early 90s that either have developed cancer in the last 10 years or are dealing with it now? Or at least all the 90's kid from Belarus that are still dying to this day because of cancer?

Are you counting every kid that dies of cancer in Eastern Europe as caused by Chernobyl?

The reality is that only one kind of cancer rose noticeably because of Chernobyl, this is thyroid cancer. And note that the base rate is one per million per year, so even a "statistically significant increase" doesn't mean a lot of cases.

Do you have any offers for that estimate? I've seen numbers that peg estimated fatalities on the order of thousands of people. I am very confident what I said will hold up. I grant that radioactive contamination has widespread non-fatal effects that are detrimental to longevity but that's true of natural disasters, as well.

please post some references to these claims

> Chernobyl is already a tiny disaster compared to the covid19 handling

(I would love to be able to burn 1500 million of dollars in a concrete sarcophagous, and still have the galls to call it a "tiny" disaster in front of the investors without laughing. That would made a memorable day, for sure...)

Instead of deaths, we should use number of years of life lost.

When primarily 80+ year olds are dying from COVID, it looks worse than a nuclear accident that killed everyone.

>Instead of deaths, we should use number of years of life lost.

The public health professionals generally do but neither activists nor journalists, let alone internet commenters ever does because you can't claim big eye grabbing numbers.