Seeing how debatable the issue of deaths caused by actual nuclear disasters is (varying from 400 to 60000 for Chernobyl), I can't imagine how little agreement t

Seeing how debatable the issue of deaths caused by actual nuclear disasters is (varying from 400 to 60000 for Chernobyl), I can't imagine how little agreement two parties could have on the comparative amounts of human suffering caused by different energy sources. You would have to encompass land use changes, air quality, long term statistical health outcomes, respiratory illness, wildlife impacts, the list goes on ad infinitum.. I don't think that Mayak is relevant, as it is a secretive, poorly regulated nuclear weapons production facility. Similarly, the impacts of Therac-25 [1] patients or the Goiania Incident[2] don't get counted against nuclear energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident