I think the perception of nuclear accidents is off as well.
The total death count at Fukushima and all other nuclear plants in Japan during or since the earthquake is six. One of those was a worker (at another site) trapped in a crane when the tsunami hit and another two were swept away. One died of a heart attack during the cleanup. One died of leukaemia in August after working at the site for one week; no way that could have been caused by the radiation. One has died since of an undisclosed medical condition, but his radiation exposure was disclosed and was tiny compared to safe limits (2.02 millisieverts; roughly the same as a mammogram spread over 46 days).
I'd guess a few of the workers, particularly the 50 who were sent into a high radiation zone early on, might develop cancers later. The increased risk for most is very small though. I've seen one estimate suggesting there might be as many as two early deaths among workers due to the experienced radiation exposure. And that's over their lifetimes.
220,000 people were screened with no adverse health effects detected. While there are increased radiation levels in the local area, they are not high enough to predict an increase in cancers. The peak background is a bit over 20 millisieverts per year. There are a few places on earth with background rates dwarfing this without any signs of increased cancers.
All in all I'd be surprised if the total death toll for the nuclear industry from this disaster breaks double figures.
That is, in human terms it was less lethal than
this disaster in Texas. Unless you start counting stress induced illness due to media hype and lack of understanding of radiation. Oh, and the costs of spending millions in excess anti-radiation efforts while other areas of reconstruction and relief are underfunded, leaving people without the resources they need in areas where their infrastructure was wiped out.