I think perhaps you didn't take the "one of worst nuclear accidents in history" part as much of an acknowledgement as intended. Disasters are not the norm, so f

I think perhaps you didn't take the "one of worst nuclear accidents in history" part as much of an acknowledgement as intended. Disasters are not the norm, so focusing on the disaster intrinsically misses the global cost/benefit trade-off, which I think seems more important to people trying to have broad policy discussions. To your point, the primary impact was the large scale evacuation. Horrible for anyone living immediately nearby. On the scale of terrible power-plants, maybe worse than living next to an active coal plant, but better than living downstream of a collapsed hydro-dam.