Nope. It was 60 from short-term ARS, plus "up to 4000" early cancer fatalities over the decades in a population where a few million would get natural cancers anyway. [1]

[1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_20...

If you're going to say stuff, please provide credible references. There are some whackjob studies that say 1000000 died from Chernobyl, but they've been discredited by the scientists of the UN working groups. Even Greenpeace doesn't believe that number. UNSCEAR is the Chernobyl equivalent of today's IPCC for climate change.

Sure... Here's one:

https://www.wired.com/story/chernobyl-liquidators-photo-gall...

Wired. The most credible of references.

Questioning one's credulity without any factual basis to discredit the argument at hand is a form of ad hominem attack. I've noticed these are common when the topic of nukes comes up. Everyone who disputes any industry claim is labeled an idiot, a whacko, etc. Not a great debate technique, IMHO.

That's exactly what the climate change deniers say about the IPCC studies. In this case, I am quoting UN groups of scientists and you are throwing up wired articles. There is some level of respect for scientific consensus that we need to have. Certainly, skepticism must be considered, but people who keep throwing up fringe skeptical articles on highly politicized information eventually appear to be lacking good faith.

You have to understand that pro-nuclear people are lambasted with popular culture that's highly anti-nuclear. Simpsons, MacGyver, Captain planet, HBO, Peter Paul and Mary wishing we had more wood stoves, everything. You can see why we might be a little more sensitive to misinformation. We have more work to do to get the science out there.

And I would say that those of us who are equally well informed and still opposed (ie: Arnie Gunderson) also have more work to do to get the truth out there. It's good to live in a place where we have that option.

The fact is that the nuclear industry is dying out all over the world. It's not a fact they want to admit, but still a fact, regardless.

Accidents of the Fukushima level are only ok if they don't affect where you live. Fear of such an event is not irrational, with most of today's plants approaching or exceeding their design lifespans.

Global warming affects everyone regardless of where we live. That's a much bigger existential threat than nuclear accidents. More environmentalists are starting to understand this.

Lots of nukes getting built outside the USA. In USA economics of cheap natural gas are causing closures. This is stupid and should be adjusted by counting carbon as an externality in the market.

Here's another...

http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121214.pdf