Hear hear. Neither I nor De are advocates of cars :-)

even if the number of deaths is in dispute, the policy consequences have happened nevertheless.

Yes, but policies aren't for eternity. There is significant counter-push in both Sweden and Germany and Britain, for example. Thus how successful anti-nuclear adocates are remains to be seen. On the other side, crash tests, the spread of roundabouts outside France and Britain, the serialisation of ABS and airbags, and the consequent significant reduction in traffic deaths in European countries signal that road safety advocates have an effect, too. (If you'd protest this effect is slow to unable to percipitate into worst affected developig countries, then I have to point out that the same would be true to stringent Finnish-style nuclear safety rules would a nuclear rennaissance include a major buildup in the Third World.)

Can we mention other causes of massive death tolls (on the basis of "we are willing to do something about Chernobyl, let's do something for another, even bigger problem") or is this seen as an attempt at somehow reducing the importance of the Chernobyl toll?

If it is not posed as a false dichotomy, I at least wouldn't oppose using such rhetoric. But, would coal (in its least environmental-controlled form) be posited as 'the' alternative to nuclear, then I would of course disapprove.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}