"the 1975 Banqiauo Dam collapse in China killed 171000 people"
"The dam failure killed an estimated 171,000 people; 11 million people lost their homes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
I did remember the Bhopal gas disaster:
Why do you keep changing the subject? Quit talking about coal and pesticides and explain why it's okay to risk the lives of entire cities of people for the sake of extra electric output?
Edit: I never disagreed with the article's title. I was agreeing with the parent post's sentiment that regardless of the numbers, downplaying the suffering of the people in Fukushima and the risks they still face is wrong. Nuclear power is dangerous and can have terrible costs. It's entirely reasonable not to view it as a praiseworthy technology.
In case you are unversed in the nuanced English being used here, "safe" != "safest", nor are their meanings equivalent. So why do you keep changing the subject?
Nuclear isn't 'safe', but it is the 'safest'. Modern society assumes some amount of risk, get over it.
Do you not understand, that's the exact reason why people are bringing up coal.
If we were to switch off of coal and onto nuclear, scores less people would die and get sick. A massive amount. Not to mention the benefits of halting climate change.
That doesn't mean nuclear is all sunshine and rainbows, and nobody who reasonably supports nuclear over coal thinks that.