"4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes m

"4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous." This figure is far less than the number who will die just this year from mining coal (mostly in China and Africa), let alone from the direct health effects of secondary causes of coal pollution which will number in the hundreds of thousands to low millions. There is very little nuclear waste (currently less than three Olympic sized swimming pools for all of Canada's nuclear waste) compared to the primary and secondary industrial waste from coal, oil and other forms of energy production, including solar and wind manufacturing. Solar and wind are only "environmentally friendly" after the units are installed and working. If you add in the production, installation and land requirements, as well as maintenance, solar and wind are not as helpful as claimed. I live between two of the largest nuclear generating stations in the world, within 20km, and I have few concerns. Having visited the sites and educated myself independently on the nuclear issue, I am far happier with this solution than the alternatives, including industrial wind and solar, though solar roof panels can have a place in helping reduce electrical heating of hot water.