Fukushima was designed with passive safety[0], so that even in the event of a tsunami the reactor core would have a good chance to maintain integrity. To date nobody has died from the event (although thousands were killed by the tsunami). I'm sure there are some dubious estimates as there were for decades after Chernobyl but I'll be surprised if there is ever a single provable casualty.

Chernobyl on the other hand was not designed with passive safety, and when the control system failed the reactor core went up in a fireball, killing several people immediately, and then many more from acute radiation exposure. Then there were at least a thousand cases of thyroid cancer, which thankfully is not untreatable.

There are really only two similarities that I'll grant you, and they are not unrelated. One is the association with atomic power. The other is the serious psychological damage caused in part by each event, but greatly amplified by the parasitic media peddling their usual doomsday nonsense.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

While I thoroughly agree with you all your points, it is your last paragraph that sets the stage. Nuclear = scary. And we have the 50's and 60's and 70's and their bug-eye green (well, black and white maybe) nuclear monsters to thank for that, along with Friends of the Earth[1] and their ilk. Chernobyl and Fukushima are PR disasters way more than they environmental disasters.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth

> Chernobyl and Fukushima are PR disasters way more than they environmental disasters.

Absolutely. So providing context and details might help people evaluate these questions from a more informed position. Sadly it's not going to make a huge difference but it's one small thing we can do to help.