The "confirmed" death bit is a dog whistle. The cancers from population radiation exposures are largely statistically undetectable (and would not all have happened yet), but regulators cannot just act as if they do not happen. Radiation is not a defendant that must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The best evidence suggests there will be no cancers related to Fukushima due to both the low levels of exposure and the long time horizons of the relevant cancers. The population effected will in all likelihood die of other causes before the cancer would occur.
Chernobyl is obviously harder to parse because of confounding lifestyle issues and poverty in the region, and now the war. But I’m not sure a badly designed and run soviet RBMK should be the basis for western nuclear policy anyway.
What "best evidence"? I find it strange that coal deaths from air pollution predicted by epidemiological considerations is taken for granted while similar predictions for nuclear from uncontrolled emissions are completely rejected by nuclear proponents. Of course numbers are far lower, but I still wonder what level of cognitive dissonance can lead to this being rejected completely.
I also always wonder whether mining deaths are correctly accounted. Even just add the number from a single east German mining company alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company) should change the picture somewhat.
> while similar predictions for nuclear from uncontrolled emissions are completely rejected by nuclear proponents
This isn't the case at all. The same epidemiological modeling definitely shows that no one exposed to radiation from Fukushima will live long enough to develop cancers associated with exposure.
