I'm not sure it's tenable to just evacuate young people from a radiation zone. There still needs to be people to service the old people's needs. I do take your

I'm not sure it's tenable to just evacuate young people from a radiation zone. There still needs to be people to service the old people's needs. I do take your point, I interpreted the parent to mean that the reason for the evacuation was radiation. In that case I'd still maintain that the deaths should be attributable to the nuclear incident. Agreed man years lost may be a better measure. I'm not sure what the morality is Vis a vis valuing a young person's life more that an old person, as a society though, we seem to have come the conclusion that an old person's life is more valuable than it should rationally be. I don't think it's reasonable to resort to whataboutism. Yes nuclear energy has probably saved lives overall, but it still costs lives. If a plane crashed should we accept the people died due to the plane crash or should we discuss how it's much safer than driving? I suppose half the problem is that humans are bad at evaluating risks. So I'm not averse to contextualising the risk, but the contextualising cart shouldn't be put before the actual quantified risk horse.