I dont ignore oppositional statistics. I ignore bad statistics. You are referring to the way I slammed the high chernobyl numbers, right?
Correlation is not causation. It often hangs out with causation, drinks its beer and cadges its cigarettes, but they are not the same thing, and without a clear mechanism for two things to cause one another, any correlation is neigh-certain to be either spurious, or a case of both things having the same ultimate cause.

As an example: it has been widely reported that there are cancer clusters near some german nuclear power stations. Note that these power stations have been monitored by continious use of geiger counters for their entire operating lives, and have never released any radiation to the public. So why are there cancer clusters near them? Because they got built in century+ old industrial zones, and chemical toxins work just fine for causing cancers.
Blaming the cancers on a cause that is logically and physically impossible just means that the true cause goes undetected. Similarily, public health in the FSU has had one hell of a crisis. It was, and is a real crisis, those people are really ill, a lot of people actually died.
The step where I get off the train is where all of that gets assumed to be due to chernobyl in an enviorment which is deeply polluted by any metric, has an ongoing epidemic of alchoholism and a severe collapse of the economy and health services.