>>the death of absolutely nobody" is not really a high standard
Good God, what in heavens name would you consider a high standard! The mind really does boggle at that one.
>>nobody has any signs of cancer yet
And 20 years from now, you will have an extremely hard time locating the additional cancer cases from the general background rate of 20-30%. They will definitely be less than 0.1% extra. The large number of extra deaths attributed to Chernobyl in some studies are only a result of the large populations involved, even the biggest of these is less than 0.1%. The argument rage because even at these levels, it is hard to impossible to really see a trend against a 20-30% background, especially when increased alcoholism in post soviet years has increased the death rate anyway. Let us go for an impossible worst case scenario. 80,000 people live in the exclusion zone and a statistically significant 1% get cancer over the next 20 years. That is 800 people. That is at least a factor 10 to high, and is likely to be even less. Even 800 is still small compared ~20,000 dead immediately from the tsunami, not considering long term effects.
>>Salt is not "a killer"
>>Something which in and of itself, is a poison
This is a basic principal, there is no such thing as "a poison", there is only a dose which is poisonous.
>>oil storage depot to blow up in Chiba; it's not still burning and spewing oil all over the place
But they haven't finished cleaning that up either. And you also have to consider the scale - Chiba went up with on big bang dispersing tonnes of toxins.
>>ad hominem attacks...or want to downplay the tsunami, etc.... really?
Yes, really. Constantly banging on about caesium when that is not any way the main problem is downplaying the tsunami. You can claim all you want that you don't mean it, but it is not what you keep saying.
>>I must be an evil or sad or pathetic or ignorant "sort of person"? Errr... no.
Your failure to grasp the simplest of facts, however often repeated is quite astounding. You still haven't understood the discussion on salt.
>>Further to the point of downplaying the tsunami
You lost me there; You start talking about those made homeless by the physical reality of the tsunami and then move on to complain about bearcats evacuating around Fukushima.
For the record, 500,000 were made homeless by the tsunami, 80,000 by the exclusion zone. See how the tsunami is still the worst offender.
>>dismiss any discussion of the aftereffects of Chernobyl
No, they simply pointed out that it is not as bad as most people think. Most studies show the animals doing fine in the exclusion zone. Cancer rates in humans are not (or barely) measurably higher than normal. There are some areas close to the plant which got huge dose, and you can see problems there (red forest). Just be careful not assume that the whole area is like that.
>>There are reputable scientists who can back up their claims that yes, Chernobyl had an effect on people's health
Yet other reputable scientists are currently investigation why the cancer rates due to Chernobyl are LOWER than expected. There are also studies showing that the stress of the "radiation fear" was actually more deadly than the radiation itself.
>>Fukushima is a huge clusterfuck
Again, I am left wondering how you would describe an accident where thousands died. Try for instance the Halifax Explosion or Bhopal, in the latter case noting the ill health effects by non radioactive chemicals. Sure, things went wrong at Fukushima, but what you need to desperately get is a sense of perspective.