Now that the western world is analyzing the radioactive particles with modern equipment and methods, we know a lot abut both what and now much material is being released from the stricken reactors and burning or boiling fuel ponds.
We actually know more from labs analyzing the air in Berkeley than we do from Japan.
It would seem that "how many died" is the only thing considered when discussing nuclear power plants and safety. That is ridiculous. Especially to a farmer or somebody with a herd of milk cattle.
The economics is far more important to most people. Especially if you live far away from the plant.
"How many people die in coal mines?" Most people would be like, "Who cares?" Insurance pays the miners families, the insurance company doesn't go under from a mine accident. Neither does the power company. And you don't have to evacuate a quarter million people either.
Coal mining destroys mountains, pollutes the water! So? That is nothing compared to the damage just one nuclear power plant can do in a day.
"How many in oil refinery accidents?"
Again, even a huge oil refinery disaster doesn't risk an entire state, or a quarter of a country. Or the world.
"How many people die from lung cancer caused by coil and oil soot?" Now that is closer to a real issue, but again, by only focusing on deaths, rather economics, you are trying to frame the discussion in an unrealistic way. The risk is spread out, and cancer also is an economic boon to most countries, cancer doesn't destroy the ability for farmers to live, for people to eat, for the economy to continue on.
"How many people died in 3 mile island?"
Now that is pure straw man at this point. You might as well ask how many people died from an explosion at a fertilizer plant. What does that have to do with the risks of a nuclear disaster?
But the economics of TMI, that is worth looking at. How much money did that cost the company? Did they go bankrupt? How long did the clean up take? Did they even finish removing all the dangerous radioactive material from the plant? (the answer is no)
How did that effect other business? Other plants being built? The money aspect is often more important than how many will die. Insurance companies know they will have to pay out for deaths, it's part of the world of business. If there is a chance they will have to pay out for poisoning an entire state with radiation, well, is that a good risk? Even if it might not happen for 30 years?
"How many from Chernobyl?"
That figure is contested, but it wasn't just deaths. The people that lost everything, the loss of cropland, the river polluted, the whole disaster there was very expensive.
Looking at deaths is a terrible way to figure risks. If your chance of death is the only thing you care about, the whole thing is just so lopsided.
