Do you realize how vapid an "argument" that is? "The disaster was incredibly devastating, but just because we were afraid it might have been even worse, nuclear power must be okay!"
Look, I have nothing against nuclear power myself, but that "argument" is just stupid.
If she wanted to just examine the actual extent of the Chernobyl accident and argue that it's an acceptable risk or one that can be eliminated through careful engineering, that's one thing, but that's not what she did. Instead, she tried to make it sound "not so bad" because worst-case projections were worse. That's bizarre, and ultimately irrelevant.
Furthermore, she misrepresents a lot of the basic facts about Chernobyl, in order to falsely make the human and economic cost look less devastating and tragic than it really is. She "forgets" to mention that 4,000 children contracted thyroid cancer from it (most survived due to immediate treatment but this is still tragic to the families and the children will have to take replacement hormones for the rest of their lives), 330,000 people lost their homes and had to be relocated, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on cleanup, recovery, compensation, etc., over 100,000 people are on permanent disability due to effects of the accident, etc. etc. And she also "forgets" to mention that the indirect death toll due to long-term radiation exposure has turned out to be unknowable (not non-existent as she implies) because the breakup of the Soviet Union has made controlled before-and-after studies impossible (because too many other factors have changed as well).
Even the things she does report are poorly treated by the "hey, it could have been worse!" treatment she gives it -- 4000 known dead due to "acute radiation exposure" is more than in 9/11. Speaking of which, how would *you* feel about anyone who tried to minimize terrorism by saying (and this is almost a word-for-word parallel to Coulter's comments on Chernobyl), "the number of dead on 9/11 did not prove as dire as had been predicted -- instead of the tens of thousands of WTC workers feared trapped in the tower, there were 2,595. Only 157 deaths were directly attributable to the plane impacts."
In short, she uses Michael Moore techniques.
No. It seems a perfectly valid argument to me. However, since you disagree, I doubt we have enough of a common basis on which to "argue" the point. You'll probably consider my arguments stupid so let's just not bother.
Shalom.
I recall reading someone assert that Pol Pot had killed off half of the population of Cambodia. It turns out to be only a third, so I guess totalitarian agrario-communism ain't so bad after all.