All true, but there is one difference, those are visible, their danger is visible or can be smelled (at least by educated people). The half life of C137 and other are invisible and contaminated larger areas and will be not good for people health for many hundreds and often thousands of years. So these two disasters are rather serious, and there isn't even an real solution where to store the waste of atomic plants. Just dumping the waste somewhere in Nevada, Ural, Kazakhstan or at the bottom of the ocean isn't a real solution. No other energy technologies (beside fusion) needs any thinking about storage of waste (secure storage for thousands of years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
The resulting flood waters caused a wave, 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) wide and 3–7 meters (9.8–23.0 ft) high in Suiping (遂平), to rush onto the plains below at nearly 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph), almost wiping out an area 55 kilometers (34 mi) long and 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) wide, and creating temporary lakes as large as 12,000 square kilometers (4,600 sq mi).
Re:Chernobyl's legacy 30 years on
by dullgiulio on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @02:30PM
(#11574392)
Also the Vajont disaster in Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
On the other hand, if you want to go for specific acute events, hydroelectric dams make nuclear power look safe. The only way to claim otherwise is to choose your dates to ignore the failure of the Banqiao Dam (171,000 deaths) and take the unreasonable high end of death toll estimates from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Presently, Mosul Dam is an excellent example of just how dangerous and real major dam failures can be.