Critical Reasoning

The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.
From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?

A. The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.
B. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on the global ecology.
C. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic.
D. The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.
E. The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.


My answer was C whereas the exam says A. Any idea who is wrong and why?