2000 people died in the evacuation.

Which mostly means the evacuation was far too aggressive, but even if we pretend they were unavoidable that's basically all the nuclear deaths for multiple decades, which is vastly less harm than fossil fuels.

It is very hard to do tracebacks of cancer to nuclear events. It's very hard to do cancer death tracebacks to industrial spills and pollution. Genetic damage that may span a generation.

Nuclear proponents (I'm a nuclear proponent) that handwave away such dangers are exactly who I'm talking about from the "old guard", and the people that the greens were correct about: the people who need to die off/retire/disappear (by attrition), whose lax view of nuclear safety and who politically killed the LFTR in preference for the solid fuel design that could ALSO produce nuclear weapons. Good riddance.

LFTR has given the blueprint for a next-gen reactor: use all the fuel, inherent meltdown protection via the plug, proliferation reduction. Solid fuel reactors are not safe

Well I'm not handwaving danger. I'm saying we should compare it to other kinds of power plant before we call it "insufficient". Maybe I define insufficient differently than you.

> It is very hard to do tracebacks of cancer to nuclear events.

Tracebacks are hard but we can do estimates. When I look those up I see numbers like "130".