The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seems to disagree. They have a very particular rating system for nuclear incidents, and rated Fukushima at highest level 7 ("Major accident"), much above "accident with local consequences" (level 4) or "anomaly" (level 1).
As Fukushima could have been avoided with more careful engineering and caused long-lasting damage to property and the environment on a wide area, I think it's good that nuclear experts take it seriously enough.
"but 34 people died as a result of the evacuation" [1].
I'm not sure I can agree that Fukushima isn't an internationally noteworthy incident. It's even one that really requires long term monitoring of radiation levels (locally only of course).
Many mistakes were made in the handling of the Fukushima reactor and accident. Radiation accidents have the potential of be massive disasters. It's important to learn from Fukushima, and not just treat it as an "acceptable cost".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
I'm trying to communicate that I don't think that Fukushima was a disaster that warranted international coverage - the weather was.
I guess you could draw a distinction between the terminology each post used, but it reads the same to me.
Be reminded that this was a geological, not meteorological, event.
Comparing the Fukushima reactor failure (due to the tsunami) to deaths from the tsunami and concluding the reactor failure was "not the biggest deal that day" seems somewhat of a non sequitur.
That is, the tsunami had two immediate effects and many people feel both are worthy of international attention and historical comparisons.
To my mind, the loss of life does not make the nuclear reactor failure relatively inconsequential. For me, they multiply the crises caused by the tsunami.
I understand how you can arrive at your assessment, but I believe that assessment is based on a comparison that compartmentalizes events a bit too rigidly.
EDIT: remove extraneous word.
In my experience, many people & journalists hold Fukushima up as a really bad disaster. I'm trying to communicate that I don't think that Fukushima was a disaster that warranted international coverage - the weather was.
At an international scale, I don't think Fukushima is much worse than a near miss. I would be really interested to get an expert academic order of magnitude on how many people died in the evacuation due to the Fukushima disaster vs. the theoretical number of deaths if they had evacuated more slowly (say over 12 months). It frustrates me that the cost-benefits of the evacuation aren't a more prominent point of discussion.
EDIT: Just for fun; I can't pretend I know anything about radiation or what the Japanese are up to; but on wiki I see things like "absolute increase in the risk of cancer(of all types) during their lifetime, of approximately 1% due to the accident" [1], " Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years ... because of depression, alcoholism, and suicide" [2]. I'd like to know who I can turn to for an honest rundown of the risks, because the radiation doesn't seem that terrible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima...