I'll point it out again: These figures are under dispute[1] and not "factual knowledge".
It seems only the IAEA is claiming 4000 deaths/cancers, whereas other studies claim tens of thousands or even a million[2].
I'll also repeat my other favorite argument in this recurring discussion: Chernobyl happened in a sparsely populated area that was quickly evacuated. Have you considered what the figures could look like if a similar disaster hits, say, the Tokyo area?
> my other favorite argument...if a similar disaster hits, say, the Tokyo area?
It has probably already been considered, which is why there is no nuclear plant within 100km or so from Tokyo, and the Chernobyl exclusion zone has a radius of 30km. So, that is a hypothetical situation.
I doubt your qualifications to make that statement "without the benefit of factual knowledge". The two biggest disasters listed on your source, the wikipedia link are from locations that were behind the iron curtain at the time. I cannot state categorically to the contrary either for that reason. The statistics for the worst nuclear incident to date are provided on that page by the IAEA. Here is an excerpt from their mission statement[1]: "assists its Member States, in the context of social and economic goals, in planning for and using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity, and facilitates the transfer of such technology and knowledge in a sustainable manner to developing Member States;"
edit:
IAEA article II "Objectives" of their statute[2]:
"The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose."
So then are you making an assertion ("Some would argue that 50,000 have already died from a nuclear incident") which you also argue can never be proven true?
Yes, that's it. My wording is terrible. I'm saying there's an argument. I'm not saying which side of the argument is right or wrong. As time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to know the extent. Only in the fullness of time could the extent possibly be known due to the delay in related deaths. It won't be known because it hasn't been monitored, and there are conflicting statistics.
Yes, some WOULD argue, but they would do so without the benefit of factual knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents...