On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine exploded 20 years ago, but the disaster will continue for another 60 years in the form of slow deaths from cancers. The accident released a plume that dropped radioactive particles throughout the Northern Hemisphere. No one has pinned down the expected toll--estimates range from thousands to tens of thousands, revealing disagreements in the way the figures should be calculated and limitations in current knowledge about radiation damage.
The most commonly reported figure is 4,000 deaths, which derives from a 2005 United Nations press release. Curiously, it called the 4,000 a "new" number from a study by "an international team of more than 100 scientists"--even though the cited work was from 1996 and was authored by only seven scientists. "Certainly the 1996 paper was never meant to make the headlines of the newspapers 10 years later," remarks lead author Elisabeth Cardis of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France.
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
