[duped]

I totally agree, but it's disingenuous to compare estimated indirect deaths from coal plants to direct deaths of a nuclear accident that was covered up for decades with no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness from exposure.

[throwaway894345]

To the extent that the comparison is disingenuous, I would think it's because we're comparing the criminal mismanagement of a Soviet nuclear facility with ordinary coal facilities. Frankly Chernobyl wouldn't happen in the west (and thus using it as a reason not to invest in nuclear seems disingenuous), and certainly not with newer, smaller, and safer reactor designs.

[jcranmer]

> a nuclear accident that was covered up for decades

The cover-up of Chernobyl lasted barely days.

> with no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness from exposure.

Only a multitude of studies. The current consensus in the scientific community is that somewhere around 20,000-30,000 total deaths attributable to Chernobyl have or will occur.

[dragontamer]

> no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness

Don't we have Geiger counter that can measure the amount of radiation emanating from nuclear power plants, including Chernobyl?