“So - yes you discredit medical reports you don’t like. I am not surprised.”
You may be fine with biased reporting, when the bias is on your side. I’m not good with it, regardless of which side they favor.
As to your nuke hysteria - you might want to check on just what happened to all the people that were supposed to get cancer and die from the Chernobyl plumes. They never materialized. Sure, if you’re dropping concrete above a melted-down reactor, you were toast - but for the millions and millions of people downwind, nothing. Also, the place has turned into an animal refuge now, just due to lack of people. Some of those animals are very hot, but they thrive.
Of course I made up everything above (as you would see it), so just ignore the UNBIASED work and live in your paranoid world.
So pointing to medical research like the peer reviewed National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation or the international research collated from physicians actually treating those affected by Chernobyl documented in this report,
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
is ‘bias’ and ‘hysteria’. Oh there is cancer, leukemia, early dementia, cardiac arrest, and countless conditions for which science hadn’t developed a name for because they don’t originate from organic diseases but are instead the result of irradiation. The medically devastating effects of Chernobyl are alive and well today but you pretend they don’t exist and claim anyone acknowledging what science and medicine knows about radiation is ‘hysteria’. And that doesn’t strike you as biased? Right.