> Fallout from Chernobyl went around the world several times, poisoning most of the humans alive or being made at the time [...]

> Not at a dangerous level, say more than eating a banana.

Born 1986 in Germany and I got a rare metabolism illness that only ~2000 more people have, all born around June/July/August in 1986 in Western and Middle Europe with some exceptions distributed around as late as born in September and October. But the Spring of 1986 was probably just a famous year for pregnant women eating exceptionally many bananas I guess?

At least I agree that dams killed more people than that specific event. But wait till you see the numbers for fossil fuels ...

Yes, I brought up the dam since hydropower is something that's typically seen as good; but still has the potential for big disasters. (I totally think hydropower is good on balance.)

Fossil fuels, and especially coal, have worse impact in total but they are typically more diffuse. So I left them out of the discussion.

A single dam break did not killed and hurt magnitudes more people then singly Chernobyl.

> In 1975 the failure of the Banqiao Reservoir Dam and other dams in Henan Province, China caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history. The disaster killed an estimated 171,000 people and 11 million people lost their homes.

Were they able to rebuild their homes in the years past that in the same spot? Yes.

Are people able to move back into the Chernobyl fallout zone in the next few thousand years? No.

See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/17/chernob...

Are you saying that 180 (old) people who refuse to leave out of 50000 who were displaced are a representative sample that should show us that living in a fallout zone isn't a problem?

I did not claim that living in the zone is without problems.