[Krasnol]

How is it that you consider only the immediate deaths from the event and neither the follow up casualties, the evacuation measures and everything else which hangs on this? Do your really think your opposite is so stupid? And yes, I did look at the press coverage a lot since I was in Tokyo at that time. But I also looked at it later on and no, I did not think it was the other way around however I'm also not that blind to ignore all the other consequences this catastrophe had for the region and the people who lived/live there.

[mpweiher]

Because I also only considered the immediate deaths from the Tsunami. And actually, the 1 death is a follow-up casualty, it wasn't immediate. So if we really only count immediate deaths, that number is 0. Zero.

--> OMG FUKUSHIMA!!! <--

What the long-term death rate is going to be is very unclear.

Now to the evacuation.

"Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement caused by mass evacuation that was not necessary for the most part"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

The same happens to be true for Chernobyl, where the health-effects due to the evacuation far exceed the health-effects due to radiation. Whereas for example the wildlife in both exclusion zones is doing just swimmingly.

So:

Fear of nuclear is killing more people than nuclear.

This is generally true, because the use of nuclear energy has saved over a million people from premature death and will (or would) save millions more:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunctio...

But somewhat surprisingly, it is also true when nuclear goes wrong, when there are accidents. Check out the decennial Chernobyl reports by the WHO, they are absolutely fascinating. Spoiler alert: with each report, so every ten years, they massively reduced their estimate of how many people would die as a result, usually by an order of magnitude.

Now that doesn't mean that there should not have been any evacuation, but it in both cases it was both to widespread and way too long.

[Krasnol]

You completely missed the message here. I wonder if it was intentional. Let me repeat it again:

It's not only deaths if it comes to say what a "safe" technology is. A technology to leads to whole regions being evacuated including every economical, social and environmental fallouts resulting from that, IS NOT SAFE.

[mpweiher]

Hmm...you appear to have missed: "caused by mass evacuation that was not necessary for the most part"

What leads to whole regions being evacuated is the exact irrational fear and panic-mongering you promulgate.

Once again: irrational fear of nuclear kills way more people than nuclear.

[Krasnol]

I did not miss that.

I just don't consider some nuclear fanbois after the fact one sentence opinion a viable argument. Especially not if it's main aim is to derail and/or cloud the actual facts.

[mpweiher]

You missed the fact that "caused by mass evacuation that was not necessary for the most part" was a direct quote from the respective Wikipedia page, backed up by the data (see the WHO reports on Chernobyl etc.).

Of course, you believe that all data that contradicts your irrational beliefs must be just opinions by "fanbois", because to actually check up on the facts would mean risk shattering your strongly held but weakly backed belief system.

[Krasnol]

Neither you nor this paper considers the fact, that if the disaster would have become worse, people would complain: why didn't you evacuate. Saying AFTER THE FACT that it was unnecessary is completely useless and ignorant. It's not like it won't happen again with the next disaster.

This is like saying that the airbag or the safety belts in my last car were unnecessary since I didn't have an accident which would justify them.