how about you quote the whole wiki article? "The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include

how about you quote the whole wiki article? "The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]" after the dam in china broke, the area became habitable. tchernobyl's surroundings not so much. the nice thing about radiation is the long term effects that make it so hard to measure. genetic issues in newborns are kind of hard to stomach. and right now the waste figures worldwide do not include the reactors and buildings themselves. what exactly are you proposing there? using the nuclear reactor in the center of our solar system seems like a better bet.