They are only intended to show that it is a real possibility by analogy with what happened to the USSR following Chernobyl. It would require a detailed simulation to elevate this from "vibe" to "a clear risk percentage".

I do not have sufficient grounding in any of the relevant fields to create such a simulation, so I'm limited to drawling circles on a map around the reactors, seeing what's inside, and making a best-guess as to the consequences informed more by world news than anything more precise.

You can just say "my bad, I made a mistake by comparing the 30-year cost of Chernobyl cleanup to the annual budget. I was probably wrong on that part"

The weirdly evasive language just undermines the rest of your points and makes you look a bit ... dishonest?

Noted, but I sincerely don't think this changes my point.