It makes no sense to "take into consideration" the long-term radioactive contamination caused by 150lbs of fissile material when considering the potential damage from a reactor accident. I stand by my statement.
Since both of those links only bring up the Hiroshima bomb to show that Chernobyl was orders of magnitude worse in terms of release of radioactive material, I'd say both of those support my point rather well.
Actually, they disprove your point, which you would notice if you'd actually read both the link and what I wrote.
First, they show conclusively that "amount of radioactive material" is not the be-all/end-all measurement that you make it out to be. Nuclear tests put a total of 100-1000 times the nuclear material of Chernobyl into the atmosphere, and yet we are also still here.
> It makes no sense to "take into consideration" [..]
Furthermore, they do exactly what you claim "makes no sense". They "take into consideration" the effects of the bombs, and they compare those effects. They do come to the conclusion that the effects are different, one factor being that Chernobyl had more material, a counter-effect being that the radiation from Chernobyl is much more low-level and thus much less harmful (in fact, there are indications that low-level radiation may be beneficial).
But "into consideration" they certainly take. QED.
