So you are basically saying that your IT is seriously incompetent and sucks at communicating. This should not be (and I think is) not the common case.

I thought the same thing. Contact with the IT department at my university has been very pleasant. Working on the different clusters, they told me where there were free resources, less users, managed to increase the length of my queue, informed me when jobs were not displaying normal behavior etc.etc.
Same goes for the few companies I worked with. But then, none of those had more than 100 employees.

So because everything would be without meaning otherwise, there has to be something transcendental? Many people seem to make that deduction.

I have all my harddisks encrypted. Less of a hassle than remembering to store everything just in /home (/srv anyone) and then forgetting about caches in /tmp or /var/tmp.
And I am quite glad for it, as I have had a laptop stolen with a lot of private stuff on it, too.

Same thought crossed my mind. In Germany, it's completely forbidden I guess, because I never received a single spam SMS in the 10+ years of use.

I said in another reply that my personal estimate, without me being particularly informed, would be several ten thousands as a worst case.

Absolutely correct, but in my understanding 4000 is way too low. But as it's pretty much impossible to attribute cancer etc. to a specific incident, it's going to be very hard to argue otherwise. I have noted in another reply that this study is pretty much bullshit (as someone else said: Greenpeace estimates 200k), but I wanted to make the point that using the most optimistic number there is, is not really fair either.
In the end, it is really moot using Chernobyl to argue about this anyway, because just so much was wrong with that reactor, that comparing it to anything in the Western world is at best inconclusive.

Nice to see there are some other people who know about it. Studies have shown (sorry, I have no link), that the expected human sick days (iirc), where higher with antibiotics than without, because the side effects were more likely to manifest than a serious infection, which could be treated anyway.
Also, there are results hinting at the possibility that treating otitis media with antibiotics results in higher recurrence rates, cause afaik unknown.

I only know about the affair of otitis media in children, but there, antibiotics are reserved for the more severe cases. But this is because research has shown that the chance of side effects of antibiotics is higher than the chance of complications, which then can still be treated by antibiotics.

Convenient how you read only the first part of my sentence. "although the same may be said about coal" was meant to say exactly what you are ranting about...
Same goes for the 1 million number. "i could just take" and argue with that was just meant to open your eyes on how wrong the 4000 deaths number most likely is. It might well be around a few ten-thousand, and that it's really in the region of millions is very unlikely. If you had even taken a look at the link, you would have noticed that they also assumed 170k deaths in the USA as a result from Chernobyl.

The problem with this is, and I have pointed this out numerous times here on slashdot, that the 4000 deaths for Chernobyl are not very realistic and are the very lowest number and estimation one can find anywhere. While also not very believable, I could just take the numbers of a few million deaths, that others supposedly observed. There are, for example, Russia estimates of nearly a million killed. So that one accident killed as many as your 2300 coal plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment
In addition to deaths, radiation also causes lot's of non-terminal cancer, although the same may be said about coal.

What I really mean to say is: Don't get all your numbers from nuclear fan boys and realize that the picture is not even close to the black-and-white you portrayed here

The "piles of garbage" seem to have been the tents, laptops and other necessities of the occupants.

To be fair, this incident resulted in several people getting prison time.

It has been explained elsewhere in the comments, but to me, I also use the word "believe" to say I "believe" the statement a certain person or circle of persons make. In this context, it implies that I believe the researchers saying AGW is real to be trustworthy. So one might argue that "trust" would be a better explanation, but in a way, trusting someone is the same as believing they are right, isn't it?