> Nuclear power has the lowest deaths per unit of power of all commercial power generation methods
This is a poor metric to use. The official death count from Chernobyl was 31. It may be as high as 50. There are probably more deaths attributable through long-term effects, etc but you start getting into subjective modeling to figure out a number for that.
It's almost 40 years later and the absolute exclusion zone is still 1,000 square miles. Treating this as only 31 (or 50) deaths grossly under-represents the magnitude of the disaster.
This fairly thorough analysis comes up with a higher estimate of around 300-500 [1]. Of course, deaths per unit of energy is not the only meaningful metric, and it ignores the environmental impact that you mention. But have you considered the environmental impact of using fossil fuels for energy?
Chernobyl is estimated to cause 27,000 fatal cancers in the larger population. You can't dismiss these just because they can't be directly demonstrated. Technology regulation is not criminal law; the technology doesn't have to be shown guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The comment I was replying to was arguing nuclear power caused the least deaths and I was explaining how that's a bad metric because it doesn't capture the impact and damage of the absolute exclusion zone.
So if the actual death count is 27,000 instead of 31 or 50 that's actually much worse, which further undermines that commenter's argument.
This is a poor metric to use. The official death count from Chernobyl was 31. It may be as high as 50. There are probably more deaths attributable through long-term effects, etc but you start getting into subjective modeling to figure out a number for that.
It's almost 40 years later and the absolute exclusion zone is still 1,000 square miles. Treating this as only 31 (or 50) deaths grossly under-represents the magnitude of the disaster.