Anyone?
Seven million people die each year, every year from air pollution, not a result of Tsunamis, not a result of accidents, but from the normal operations of biomass, coal, oil and gas plants.
A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)
Nobody gives a rats ass about these millions of deaths, although there are millions of people all around the planet who will burn more gas and coal to complain about the reactors at Fukushima.
If one thousand people died from radiation from Fukushima over the next ten years - they won't - it still wouldn't amount to two hours of air pollution deaths.
Nuclear energy saves lives. It need not be perfectly safe in a tsumai and 9.0 earthquake to be vastly superior to everything else.
I note that the people cheering for rising seas - seas are very much involved in tsunamis - by opposing nuclear energy - haven't been complaining about the failures of buildings in the tsunami. They think buildings are "safe." Which called more deaths in the tsunami and earthquake, buildings or radiation? Which caused more deaths in the tsunami, drowning in a coastal city or radiation?
The selective criteria utilized by the anti-nukes, including the barely scientifically literate reporters for the New York Times, is criminal. It's killing people, every damned day.
There are on this planet, about 1.8 million people who are alive today because nuclear energy prevented the air pollution that otherwise would have killed them. There might be tens of millions more were it not for the selective attention of anti-nukes.
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
= new reply since forum marked as read