Oh, I know, they don't count, because they die consistently and constantly.

The Lancet paper that describes these deaths doesn't even record nuclear deaths at all, because on scale they're trivial.

Lancet 2012.380.2224–60

One may refer to Table 3 in the paper to see if "nuclear accidents" are comparable to exposure to cadmium, which killed 555 people in 2010 alone. Well, one can't actually. "Nuclear accidents" don't appear on the list of major causes of mortality between 1990-2010, since, um, they're trivial.

By contrast, particulate air pollution killed 3,223,540 people in 2010; this may account for the paper published by Jim Hansen last year, showing that nuclear energy saved more than 1.8 million lives over its operating history, and might have saved lots more, were it not for the fear and ignorance of anti-nukes.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power

One therefore wonders which killed more people, Chernobyl or the air pollution spewed out to run servers so people who know nothing about science, nothing about epidemiology could spread scare stories about Chernobyl being the end of the world.

I note that the Lancet paper reports that 119,762 people died in 2010, alone, as a result of vitamin A deficiencies. Nearly all of these deaths would have been prevented if golden rice - a GMO crop - had been allowed to be introduced in impoverished nations, something that the same class of bourgeois brats who oppose nuclear energy prevented from happening.

Some people think this was a crime, and I tend to agree: Crimes against humanity

This is related to the case with the "Chernobyl is the worst thing that ever happened" meme, in the sense that the same set of people who hate the world's largest form of climate change gas free primary energy, nuclear energy, also despite genetic engineering.

Which killed more people between 1990 and 2010, Vitamin A deficiencies or radiation from Chernobyl and all of the world's other nuclear power plants? Particulates in air pollution or radiation from Chernobyl and all of the world's other nuclear power plants? Exposure to cadmium or or radiation from Chernobyl and all of the world's other nuclear power plants?

Both cases, the Vitamin A case, and the anti-nuke case are clear cut and irrefutable demonstrations of how ignorance kills.

Have a wonderful weekend.

""Nuclear accidents" don't appear on the list of major causes of mortality between 1990-2010, since, um, they're trivial."

Trivial for who? Not for me or my family.

Maybe what you presented is absolute truth, but: both my wife and I lived in Kiev in 1986, and her mother was one of the first nurses to arrive in Chernobyl in order to organize the field medical camp. Suffice it to say that most of her former patients are dead now, and she is on permanent disability. The stories she told... were depressing.
My friend, who was a surgeon in Kiev in the 90s, told me they had childhood and YA thyroid surgeries on almost like a conveyor belt-system due to a waiting line of patients from northern Ukraine and Belarus.
Personally, I egoistically thank my lucky stars that the prevailing winds on 4/26/86 and for several days thereafter were blowing north - not south to Kiev. So they were other children who contracted thyroid cancer and leukemia and not me (I also have a "growth" on the thyroid, albeit a small one).

So I'm biased, you see. I bet if you ask some people in Three Mile Island and Fukushima, you'll find similar stories (and similarly biased people) as well.

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, fuck this shit. And if you want to conflate GMO with this, then fuck the GMO too.
It is not a very rational response, but the best one I can come up with while being mad as hell.

Those deaths from air pollution are not only because of coal power plants is why. That's what you'd like us to believe but sorry most people know better. A large percentage of air pollution deaths are due to improper heating and cooking devices in third world countries. If you are really worried about those deaths get off your ass and do something about that. But no you will come here and any time there is a post reminding us of the dangers of a nuclear power plant you trot this canard out like it is comparing apples to apples when in fact it's as far from that as one can get for comparisons sake.

Now, go have a good day, I plan too

Prensa Latina is the Cuban state news agency. You have an endless array of sources for this story and somehow you managed to pick the one source which is the propaganda wing of the Cuban state. How is that possible?

Prensa Latina News Agency is the website of the Latin American News the head office in Havana, Cuba, and 28 bureaus worldwide.

It is not the propaganda wing of the Cuban state. IF there is such a thing its Granma http://www.granma.cu/idiomas/ingles/

How is that possible? maybe because they posted it first. Do you really believe they would fabricate a statement issued by the spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

Because they stole it from the UN website.

Viva la revolución, right?

This website should have respectable news sources. Not state propaganda. And the OP has demonstrated that they are okay with the latter.