Disclosure: I am and have long been very pro nuclear power.

My wife lived near Chojniki, Belarus, for a number of months in 1996.

I skimmed the WHO evaluation you linked, and, unless it has some context I'm not aware of, it just doesn't jive with the actual impact, on the ground, near Chernobyl.

A quick link: http://www.businessinsider.com/birth-defects-related-to-cher...

From that article: "A study by UNICEF suggested that more than 20% of adolescent children in Belarus suffer from disabilities caused by birth defects."

In her time there, 10 years after the disaster, she witnessed many gross birth defects in children, and very many cancers in children and adults.

I hesitate to bring anecdotes up as anything like a refutation to a formal and proper report from the WHO, but it's clear that something is missing.

I'd like to note that, in terms of acute human exposure, there's no comparison between Fukushima and Chernobyl.

> Also, the health impact of fairly low radiation dosages is effectively unknown to date, but data from the Chernobyl incident keeps correcting the effect downward every 10 years.

Citation needed, though you did mention 'low radiation doses'. That's the thing: a whole lot of people received a pretty stiff dose from Chernobyl. Perhaps the health impact of low doses isn't well understood, but that's not the case with much higher doses.