Since the link to the source of the first table in that blog post does not work: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104991518.pdf ht

Since the link to the source of the first table in that blog post does not work: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/41104991518.pdf http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/... (pdf, Wilson &al. IAEA Bulletin 41/1 1999) Additionally, I recall that there are some problems with the estimate. For example it assumes that there are no more major accidents after Chernobyl. And he uses the WHO study, which may underestimate cancer fatalities by an order of magnitude. For a nice discussion of the problems of studies of Chernobyl see: http://allthingsnuclear.org/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/ http://allthingsnuclear.org/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-r...