[CamperBob2]

With just a few "minor" issues with safety

History shows that nuclear power is very safe as long as you don't build the plants in tsunami-prone seismic zones, operate them for decades beyond their intended service life, or allow a bunch of unhinged Russians to play "Hold my vodka and watch this" in the control room.

...and waste.

We've also learned that disposal of radioactive waste isn't a problem as long as you mix it with carbon-combustion products and spew it into the air, like coal plants do. Out of sight, out of mind appears to be the optimal way to deal with deadly pollution.

[clock_tower]

On nuclear safety, consider that France runs on something like 80% nuclear power. Hardly anyone knows this, because French nuclear plants are run well, and haven't had any disasters.

[tobltobs]

A few years ago you could have said the same about japan.

[CamperBob2]

I can't remember where I read it, but Japan apparently has a history of playing fast and loose with nuclear stuff. Their safety record prior to Fukushima was far from spotless.

[tobltobs]

After a nuclear accident in France you will be able to read the same about the "safety record" in France. The safety record of eg. Fessenheim does not sound reassuring.

[CamperBob2]

Regardless, it would take a pretty bad nuclear accident to do as much harm as existing carbon-based power plants do when operating as designed.

Not all harm involves glowing green blobs of radioactive doom on CNN.