This is more like saying that there's no consensus about climate change. Sure, there are people that disagree, but it is small. And to quote the wiki you posted (from the opening)
> The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences.Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings.
There is no consensus because the authors of the negative reviews are the authors of works heavily criticized in the book.
What you consider as a consensus forms, in fact, a debate.
This is not "some researchers publish, are criticized by the book, then the scientific community condemns the book, forming a consensus".
Nope.
It is in fact "some researchers publish, are criticized by the book, then the criticized researchers try to debunk the book, then the authors of the book answer to them".
One of the critics is Monty Charles. His own work, done for the UNSCEAR (a pro-nuke UN agency) in 2006, is heavily criticized in the book. He then criticized this book.
Another critic was published by Mona Dreicer, who worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (another UN pro-nuke agency) and the book criticized her work.
S. Jargin, another author of a negative review, sees flaws in each and every publication criticizing a powerful industry. For example asbestos is in his opinion not a concern and its use unduly prohibited.
There is no consensus about it.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...