Selective quoting is flawed basis for argument. My words weren't only 50 people killed but 50 people killed and a few thousand (say 4,000) gravely affected. If I'd add something to that, it's that Chernobyl isn't only "a worst case scenario" but also a single data point in a so far similarly sparse dataset. And like at least one other here said, but I haven't cause it's still developing, so far no Japanese deaths except for one or two people who were at ground zero.
Really the only argument I've made so far is that coal and other current alternative energy sources to nuclear are responsible for more deaths and other casualties than nuclear. I'm all ears to evidence to the contrary, though it's gotta be more convincing than "think of my family" or less vague than "we're debating it in my country". There's "debate" in the USA and from what I've seen it (and a number of other things relying on nukes, space probes for instance) is pretty skewed by misinformation in the public and corruption in politics.
If you're closed to any evidence to the contrary of your convictions then you can just say so. It's not clear if you're just convinced I'm out to troll you or whatever holier than thou motivation to keep dodging my arguments, or if you really are just that convinced that nuclear is undoubtedly more dangerous. And if the latter then why not just pick one of the things I've pointed out and show how it's wrong? I'm all ears.
So again my assertion: nuclear has killed and otherwise harmed less people than most other energy solutions. Nuclear would be a safer and cleaner alternative to coal, is the only alternative to coal that can be ramped up relatively quickly (easily quicker than wind / solar), and in replacing coal the net result would be cleaner and safer energy.
I'm all ears to how exactly you weigh the nuclear waste issue as more harmful to people than coal/oil/etc's effects.
