This kind of chart should have its workings and data readily available. It appears the only deaths included for nuclear are from some cancer estimate which is not readily accessible. It is not clear what the others death count includes.
Here is the entire data download that is actually included for this chart:
Entity,Code,Year, (deaths per TWh)
Biomass,,2014,4.63
Brown coal,,2014,32.72
Coal,,2014,24.62
Gas,,2014,2.821
Nuclear,,2014,0.074
Oil,,2014,18.43
With it lacking any discussion of what these quite mysterious counts mean - this is often taken as proof of safety. Yet Nuclears exceptional score could be transformed by the kind of catastrophic accident which nuclear is capable of and which by great expense and some luck has avoided to date.
For example if weather during Fukushimas accident had blown fallout over Tokyo, or if a reactor anywhere releases similar or greater amounts of fallout anywhere in the world where a large population center is downwind, many thousands of cancers are possible, with children disproportionately affected by radiation exposure. Large areas of land can be made uninhabitable to civilization for decades or more, and depending on future civilizations standards.
It blew the fallout northwest. An aproximate 50x20 km eliptic strip was contaminated. Tokyo is too far away. Uninhabited by people, yes, mainly due to fear if radiation. For other animals and plants that aren't aware of radiation, not really.
The problem with radiation for humans is, that humans live far longer than most species - at least common to the two regions with a reactor blowup. An e.g. 10 year loss of projected lifespan would be considered unacceptable for a human population, but most animals don't live long enough to get significantly impacted.
What about them? By the way the article is about people living outside the exclusion zone, though at its borders. Only about 150 humans are currently living illegally inside the zone, according to the article. And of course, they are not dying immediately, but certainly have a larger risk for cancers. Though, if they don't smoke and as they are not exposed to many other contaminants, it might not be too bad.
Here is the entire data download that is actually included for this chart:
With it lacking any discussion of what these quite mysterious counts mean - this is often taken as proof of safety. Yet Nuclears exceptional score could be transformed by the kind of catastrophic accident which nuclear is capable of and which by great expense and some luck has avoided to date.For example if weather during Fukushimas accident had blown fallout over Tokyo, or if a reactor anywhere releases similar or greater amounts of fallout anywhere in the world where a large population center is downwind, many thousands of cancers are possible, with children disproportionately affected by radiation exposure. Large areas of land can be made uninhabitable to civilization for decades or more, and depending on future civilizations standards.