Not the OP, but 15,000 people died because of the tsunami. No one died from the radiation release at Fukushima and:
"A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated."
No one dying quite glibly ignores the economic and social consequences of displacing somewhere in the neighborhoods of 120,000 people.
That aside, are we to believe that no one's medical conditions were made more severe by the stress and displacement caused by this disaster? And no one died as a result? Something of the scale of Fukushima can't be so easily dismissed by this kind of cursory analysis of radiation related health risks.
As yongjik commented elsewhere, an order of magnitude more people died as a result of the evacuation than the WHO predicts would die of additional cancer deaths. And that's assuming a linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure, when current thinking is that a threshold-based model is more accurate.
As s/he summarizes, more people died as a result of running away from the disaster than would have died if they'd stayed put.
Fukushima and Chernobyl are both classed as 7s, but the amount of radiation released at Fukushima was at least an order of magnitude less than Chernobyl, with 80% of that falling on the ocean.
Fukushima caused half as many people as Chernobyl to evacuate.
No one died as a direct result of Fukushima, as opposed to 2 immediate + 28 cleanup deaths from Chernobyl.
Fukushima definitely deserves to be taken seriously, and it belongs in the same class as Chernobyl, but at the other end of that class.
Thousands of families have forced out of their homes and displaced by a radiation-polluted landscape, which the conservative government is trying to pass off as safe so they can pull their disaster relief subsidies:
