Was there Chernobyl? (Notes on two medical concepts)

Overcoming social skepticism about the future of nuclear power and other highly efficient industries using fissile materials is, in our opinion, a matter of time, because in the near foreseeable future there is no other technically and economically feasible alternative to nuclear power due to the imminent fuel and energy crisis. However, it is bewildering the efforts of apologists for nuclear energy to minimize the degree of harmful radiation effects on the human body and on entire groups of people (NPP personnel, participants in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, the population evacuated from the affected areas and the population of the regions that found themselves in the path of the radioactive cloud after the accident on ChNPP). Many studies, numerous publications of specialists in various fields, from nuclear physicists to physicians and biologists, have been devoted to the fulfillment of this very dubious task. These publications are systematized, carefully selected and published in special brochures, collections and whole books, in which there are no skeptical statements and research results of those specialists who adhere to a slightly different point of view or strongly reject the concept of "35 rem in a lifetime". Their opinion can be found mainly only with a careful study of the collections of reports at highly specialized thematic conferences, meetings, seminars, and even then mainly in the biomedical direction. But all their persistent calls to reconsider the concept of radiation, affecting people in a dose exceeding 35 rem per life, are met with fierce hostility, declared incompetent, populist or politically opportunistic, or even simply anti-scientific.