Since many years we have tried to demonstrate that certain scientific writers act in accordance with the interests of fossil fuel producers [1,2]. The overestimation of adverse effects of nuclear-energy industry leads to its strangulation, supporting appeals to eliminate nuclear power plants (NPPs). These days, the single most important consideration against nuclear facilities is that they are potential war targets. Escalation of military conflicts contributes to boosting fossil fuel prices. The Chernobyl accident has been exploited for the same purpose. According to our observations, the unofficial directive to exaggerate Chernobyl consequences was issued in the former SU in the late 1980s - early 1990s, when studies of that kind were started or planned e.g. [3,4]; more details and references are in [1,2]. Apparently, some foreign nationals have complied with the directive. Today there are no alternatives to the nuclear power; especially for Europe, where large hydroelectric power stations cannot be built. The fossil fuels will become increasingly expensive, contributing to excessive population growth in fossil fuel-producing countries and poverty elsewhere.

Previously we have commented on some works by Drs. Alfred Körblein, Hagen Scherb and associates [5]. Using mathematical calculations, Dr. Körblein has alleged a cause-effect relationship between the Chernobyl fallout and perinatal mortality increase in the former Soviet Union (SU) and even in Western Europe [6-9]. The following arguments should be recollected in this connection: (1) correlations (especially weak ones) do not prove causality; (2) there have been potent social confounding factors in action since 1986; (3) vested interests: initially after the Chernobyl accident prevailed the aspiration after international aid and cooperation; later on, the interests of fossil fuel producers have predominated; (4) data from the former SU may have been biased in accordance with the above-mentioned interests; (5) shutdowns of NPPs in Germany make the country dependent on Russia; (6) variations of natural background radiation (NBR) are larger than average surplus from Chernobyl on contaminated territories let alone non-contaminated ones. Details and references are in preceding publications [1,10,11].

An example: “It is hypothesized that the observed increase in perinatal mortality in the 1990s may be a late effect of incorporated strontium-90 on the immune system of pregnant women. The analysis is based on a theoretical model, as no data on strontium concentrations were available” [12]. Moreover: “Acceptance of the strontium hypothesis means that atmospheric weapons testing could be responsible for the deaths of millions of infants in the Northern Hemisphere” [12]. Of note, significant deposition of ⁹⁰Sr after the Chernobyl accident was limited to the zone adjacent to the NPP; virtually no areas outside the 30 km zone were contaminated at a level ≥100 kBq/m². Contaminations exceeding 37 kBq/m² were almost all within a distance less than 100 km from the NPP. An individual lifetime dose as a function of contamination 185-555 kBq/m² was estimated in the range 5-20 mSv [13], which is a small addition to the average dose from NBR. According to a study conducted in the first half of the 1990s, the intake of ⁹⁰Sr from residents’ diet of the most contaminated Gomel province was in the range 1-1.7 kBq/year. Individual doses estimated based on measurements of ⁹⁰Sr in the body did not exceed 10% of internal radiation from natural radionuclides. The annual effective dose from ⁹⁰Sr in the Gomel province in 1994 was negligible: <0.002 mSv or <5% of the dose from ¹³⁷Cs [14]. Analogous data (“Internal doses from ⁹⁰Sr in Gomel oblast during 1986-2001 are estimated 10-30 times smaller than from Cs ingestion for the same time period”) were cited by Dr. Körblein [8] with reference to a report of the Belarusian Ministry of Health [15]. Further dose comparisons are presented here below. Another questionable statement: “A highly significant peak [of perinatal mortality] was also found in Ukraine in 1991, in addition to the effect of gross domestic product. These peaks occurred too early to be attributed to the socioeconomic crisis” [6]. For inside observers it is obvious that after the anti-alcohol campaign (1985-1989) followed a deep “socioeconomic crisis” i.e. deterioration of the healthcare and mass consumption of poor quality toxic beverages sold through legally operating shops [16]. According to observations, the quality and availability of some medicaments, foodstuff, and infant food decreased at that time.

Expectant mothers having anxiety and post-traumatic stress are at a higher risk of preterm birth [17]. Exaggeration of increased risk especially for pregnant women “repeatedly created a situation of panic, like a posttraumatic stress disorder” [18]. After the Chernobyl accident, “conflicting information and false rumors spread considerable alarm among the public in general and among pregnant women in particular” [19]. Radiation phobia with psychosomatic manifestations [20] must be more prevalent in more contaminated areas thus contributing to dose-effect correlations. It can be reasonably assumed that radiophobia contributed to illegal abortions during the last trimester of pregnancy influencing perinatal mortality statistics. There was an increase in the induced abortion rate in different countries after the Chernobyl accident. Certain professional publications may prevent physicians from giving adequate advice to pregnant women inquiring about a possible abortion. Presumably, “the public debate and anxiety among the pregnant women and their husbands ‘caused’ more fetal deaths… than the accident” [21].

Worldwide annual doses from NBR are generally expected to be in the range of 1-10 mSv, with 2.4 mSv being the estimated global average [22]. Some national averages are ≥10 mSv [23]. In Europe, mean annual doses from NBR are ≥5-7 mSv in several countries [13]. There are many places in the world where the dose rate from NBR is 10-100 times higher than the average e.g. 260 mGy/year in Ramsar, Iran [24], or 70 mGy/year at some locations in Kerala, India [25]. According to UNSCEAR, “as far as whole body doses are concerned, the six million residents of the areas of the former SU deemed contaminated received average effective doses for the period 1986-2005 of about 9 mSv, whereas for the 98 million people considered in the three republics, the average effective dose was 1.3 mSv, a third of which was received in 1986. This represents an insignificant increase over the dose due to background radiation over the same period (~50 mSv)” [26]. Outside the former SU, individual doses from the Chernobyl fallout were much lower: the first year doses after the accident reached 1 mSv only at singular locations in Central Europe; all country overages being ≤1 mSv/year [27]. For comparison, a CT scan produces a dose within the range 2-20 mSv [28]. Increased perinatal mortality has never been reliably proven for the above-mentioned doses. Annual individual doses in the vicinity of reactors have been estimated in the range 0.001-0.5 mSv [22], so that the above dose comparisons pertain also to residents in the vicinity of NPPs.

Undoubtedly, ionizing radiation can cause damage to embryo and elevate prenatal mortality. The ICRP and UNSCEAR considered that there is a threshold for teratogenic effects at ~100 mGy [29-31], which is much higher than average doses related to accidents. Diagnostic imaging may expose a fetus to ≤50 mGy, which poses no known risk of anomalies or pregnancy loss [32]. Of note, epidemiological studies may overestimate radiation-related risks due to selection and self-selection bias (higher probability of exposed people to be medically examined), social and psychological factors sometimes accompanying exposures. Supposed threshold doses in animal experiments are generally higher than those calculated on the basis of epidemiological studies in humans [22,33,34].

In conclusion, the global development of nuclear energy should be managed by a powerful international executive based in the most developed parts of the world. It would enable construction of NPPs in optimally suitable places, disregarding national borders, considering all social, political, geological and other preconditions, quality of working by local professionals. In this way, nuclear accidents like in Fukushima, caused by the earthquake and tsunami, or in Chernobyl, favored by negligence and disregard for written instructions [35-37], would be prevented. In conditions of current political and economical rivalries, radiation safety regulations are exceedingly restrictive and should be revised to become more realistic and workable. Strictly observed realistic safety norms will bring more benefit for the public health than excessive restrictions that would be neglected in the countries with prevailing disrespect for laws and regulations, bringing to the trespassers economic advantages.

Declaration

No conflict of interest.

1. Jargin SV. The overestimation of medical consequences of low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation, 2nd edition, paperback. newcastle upon tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2024.
2. Jargin SV. Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010; 49: 743-745.
3. Kogan EA, Cherniaev AL, Chuchalin AG, Samsonova MV, Demura SA, Sekamova SM, et al. Morphologic and molecular-genetic characterization of lung cancer developing in people who have worked at nuclear facilities and who have lived in Russian territories polluted after the accident at the Chernobyl power plant. Arkh Patol. 1999; 61: 22-26.
4. Lysenko AI, Kirpatovskii ID, Pisarenko SS. Morphological changes in male sexual glands in Kaluga regions contaminated with radionuclides. Arkh Patol. 2000; 62: 27-31.
5. Jargin SV. The male to female ratio at birth: environmental versus social factors. J Environ Occup Sci. 2019; 9: 13-22.
6. Körblein A. Perinatal mortality after Chernobyl in former Soviet countries. PLoS One. 2025; 20: e0326807.
7. Körblein A, Küchenhoff H. Perinatal mortality in Germany following the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1997; 36: 3-7.
8. Körblein A. Strontium fallout from Chernobyl and perinatal mortality in Ukraine and Belarus. Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2003; 43: 197-202.
9. Körblein A. Perinatal mortality after Chornobyl in contaminated regions of Ukraine. PLoS One. 2024; 19: e0303427.
10. Jargin SV. The consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster are still felt today. J Cancer Sci. 2025; 10: 1.
11. Jargin SV. Cardiovascular consequences of exposure to low-dose radiation. J Cardiol Cardiovascular Res. 2024; 6: 133.
12. Körblein A. Statistical modeling of trends in infant mortality after atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. PLoS One. 2023; 18: e0284482.
13. Mould RF. The Chernobyl Record. The Definite History of Chernobyl Catastrophe. Bristol: Institute of Physics. 2000.
14. Khramchenkova OM. Nekotorye zakonomernosti postupleniia stronciia-90 v organizm liudei i ego rol v formirovanii doz vnutrennego oblucheniia organizma v usloviiah avarii na Chernobylskoi AES [Some regularities of strontium-90 intake in the human body and its role in the formation of internal irradiation doses of the body under the conditions of the Chernobyl accident]. Dissertation. Gomel: Res Institute Radiation Med. 1996.
15. Loseva LL. Shchitovidnaia zhelieza u detei: posledstviia Chernobylia. Minsk: Belarusian Ministry of Health. 1996; 60-65.
16. Jargin S, Robertson S. Alcohol and alcoholism in Russia: recent history. Newcastle upon tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2025.
17. Hoirisch-Clapauch S, Brenner B, Nardi AE. Adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes in women with mental disorders. Thromb Res. 2015; 135: S60-S63.
18. Perucchi M, Domenighetti G. The Chernobyl accident and induced abortions: only one-way information. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990; 16: 3-444.
19. Bertollini R, Di Lallo D, Mastroiacovo P, Perucci CA. Reduction of births in Italy after the Chernobyl accident. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990; 16: 96-101.
20. Hubert D. Quatre ans après Tchernobyl: les retombées médicales. Bull Cancer. 1990; 77: 19-428.
21. Knudsen LB. Legally induced abortions in Denmark after Chernobyl. Biomed Pharmacother. 1991; 45: 229-231.
22. 2000 Report. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources. Annex C: Exposures from man-made sources of radiation. Annex J: Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident. New York: United Nations. 2000.
23. Radiation, people and the environment. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2004; 1-84.
24. Sacks B, Meyerson G, Siegel JA. Epidemiology without biology: false paradigms, unfounded assumptions, and specious statistics in radiation science (with commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a reply by the authors). Biol Theory. 2016; 11: 69-101.
25. Nair RR, Rajan B, Akiba S, Jayalekshmi P, Nair MK, Gangadharan P, et al. Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Phys. 2009; 96: 55-66.
26. 2008 Report. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Annex D: Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl Accident. New York: United Nations. 2008.
27. 1988 Report. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. Annex D: Exposures from the Chernobyl accident. New York: United Nations. 1988.
28. Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008; 248: 254-263.
29. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37: 1-332.
30. 2010 Report. Summary of low-dose radiation effects on health. New York: United Nations. 2010.
31. Körblein A. Perinatal mortality after the Fukushima nuclear accident: An ecological study. PLoS One. 2022; 17: e0264491.
32. Kumar R, De Jesus O. Radiation effects on the fetus. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2025.
33. Little MP. Evidence for dose and dose rate effects in human and animal radiation studies. Ann ICRP. 2018; 47: 97-112.
34. Mitchel RE. The dose window for radiation-induced protective adaptive responses. Dose Response. 2009; 8: 192-208.
35. Jargin SV, Kaloshin AK. Back to the mechanisms of cancer incidence increase after Chernobyl. Int J Cancer Res Mol Mech. 2015; 1: 1-5.
36. Beliaev IA. Chernobyl. Vahta smerti [Death shift]. Moscow: Izdat. 2006.
37. Semenov AN. Chernobyl. Desiat let spustia. Neizbezhnost ili sluchainost? [Chernobyl. Ten years later. Inevitability or accident?]. Moscow: Energoatomizdat. 1995.