Atomic Bomb versus Fukushima Nuclear Crisis

Indeed, a bomb releases it's energy explosively in a matter of seconds, leaving behind a burnt and irradiated landscape, and a plume of radioactive fallout aerosols which typically are carried away downwind (assuming the blast was above ground and didn't penetrate the ground "bunker buster" style). This is a singular event with finite amounts of contaminants that largely are lofted high into the atmosphere, thus contaminating the air and soil anywhere downwind at finite levels for years (and permitting countries to detect even the slightest traces of nuclear accidents or testing, specifically the "illegal" above-ground variety atmospheric testing as practiced at Bikini or in Nevada some years ago... but I digress). While it is undeniable that victims exposed to a nuclear-bomb's radiative fury can and do suffer instant death or long-term radiation-burn consequences, much of that is due to exposure to an external radiation source (the bomb exploding in near vicinity), not due to ingested/inhaled fallout, though in fact bombs will also expose victims to fallout as well. However, it is the fallout which results in long-term consequences of ingested/inhaled radiation poisoning and the kinds of cancers that are being documented as a consequence of Nevada above-ground nuclear-testing and Chernobyl downwind fallout exposures (from Ukraine to Belarus to the Baltic and beyond), even without the horrific burns resultant from direct exposure to nuclear bomb blast radiation. The difference between a bomb and a nuclear meltdown is that the latter is the "weapon" that keeps on delivering fallout and cancer-risk (the ingested/inhaled radiotoxic particulates), in the form of emissions both into the atmosphere while the meltdown is in progress into the ground and groundwater continuing ad infinitum as long as the molten corium remains in situ and is not contained via some elaborate entombment structure(s), and ultimately into the food-chain and all materials which are part of our everyday lives. Because those contaminants spread so rapidly and widely, from a source that is vastly larger than any bomb delivers, and because those contaminants are so long-lived and virtually impossible to remove from the environment once spread, the risk of long-term internal exposure for the general public are much larger than is true for a bomb, and the public health consequences thus also a much greater concern... indeed, the difference between a bomb and the worst-case NPP catastrophe (Fukushima) is that in the former, you can rebuild, whereas the latter will render your country uninhabitable and unsalvagable for centuries to come... Having said that, I wish neither upon anyone, and cannot comprehend that anyone would ever come up with a risk-analysis which would enable the building of a Fukushima-style NPP. But someone did... and nobody will be held accountable (though everyone must pay).