I agree that the perception of risk is because of the indirect effects you mention. There's a strong similarity between climate science and low-dose radiation

I agree that the perception of risk is because of the indirect effects you mention. There's a strong similarity between climate science and low-dose radiation science. Both have huge well-coordinated UN and WHO-organized teams of experts who have reached consensus (IPCC for climate, UNSCEAR for radiation). Both have passionate counter-advocates saying that the UN experts are in cahoots and lying (Breitbart for climate, Greenpeace for radiation). You appear to be referring to the Greenpeace side of the story (which is also who the recent Chernobyl HBO series listened to, unfortunately). Let me direct you to the UNSCEAR side of the story: https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html Today, we understand that low-dose radiation causes very little negative health effects over the long term. It's not the boogeyman we're lead to believe by the opponents of nuclear power. Including all the long-term deaths caused by Chernobyl, nuclear has still saved over 2 million lives simply by displacing air pollution deaths. Nuclear is definitively a life-saver. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197?source=cen https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197?source=cen