60,000 (TORCH report) cancer deaths overall Thanks for pointing that out one more time. I'm not an anti-nuclear zealot but I'm getting extremely tired of suppo

60,000 (TORCH report) cancer deaths overall Thanks for pointing that out one more time. I'm not an anti-nuclear zealot but I'm getting extremely tired of supposedly intelligent people citing the "35 deaths" bullshit-figure on HN in each japan-thread. If there had been only 35 or 4000 deaths then Chernobyl would not be considered a catastrophic event up to this day. Instead it would be considered a testament to the safety of the technology. I wonder if the part that these people have trouble wrapping their head around is the latency? This is what happens during a nuclear accident: Nothing. At the very worst we may see a few hundred immediate deaths. Other than that, life goes on. The real aftermath kicks in 10-20 years later, when people start developing cancer and birth defects. Different sources report different figures for Chernobyl, partly due to political bias, and partly because it's just really hard to track >600k people over such a long timeframe. However, the estimates from most sources other than the IAEA and the russian government range in the tens of thousands - quite a long shot from "35".