I do like these threads. There is still a lot of vague hand waving regarding "nuclear radiation" and the dangers/health effects, both by the public and qualified scientists. There is still quite some debate over what one considers "safe limits", with some calling them too low, and that feeds into the public's fear. It's a bit like EM radiation, certain drugs and even vaccines, but with those there is an overwhelming consensus, with a minority still paranoid about the dangers - nuclear radiation is far more split - you can find a highly qualified doctor to claim that there are no safe levels, and you can find an equally qualified person to claim that current safe limits are far too low.
What makes matters worse is, it can be quite hard to get hard numbers on these things, because ionizing radiation and its damage relies on so many other factors: the radioactive elements, radiation type, method of exposure, be it ingestion through water, inhalation of particles, food sources, and absorption is dependent on chemistry!. Sure we can measure radioactive sources fairly accurately, but only with standards like distances, exposure times and standardized shielding (clothing). All this adds up to a pretty large ambiguity, so whilst some err on the side of caution (almost to the point of blind fear) and claim "no level is safe" the reality is almost always "it depends".
And with things like death toll, that includes those who died from non-radiation effects - toxic substances released from construction materials that cause chemical damage rather than ionizing damage.
I vaguely remember a documentary on the disaster back in the 90's where several "scientists" (we just have to take the documentary's word on that) claimed that the death toll was tens of thousands, but investigation put it at less than 300, with a possibility of it increasing to 2000 - that is one hell of an error margin. It focused on cancer rates in the following decades and pointed out the survival rate for thyroid cancer was 98%, where-as the guesstimates assumed that thyroid cancer was 100% fatal - as it projected the total death-toll based on the current rate of diagnosis.
I guess the arguments will always go from one side that believes we can turn the planet into a radioactive wasteland (there just ain't enough fissile material for that) to the other extreme that nuclear is far safer than any other source. I guess its clear I'm for nuclear power, as the apparent immediate dangers of it are less than the dangers of fossil fuels, nothing is completely safe, everything is a risk/benefit analysis. The fact that Chernobyl exclusion zone is now full of thriving wildlife is at least an obvious sign such a disaster didn't cause the kind of barren wasteland the 50's comics wanted you to believe.