[dredmorbius]

That's not accessible.

As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima.

Actually, I've previously discussed both here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are...

NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past.

The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/

Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).

[wbc]

the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses

[dredmorbius]

Starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf

And p. 745: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf

[dredmorbius]

One of the appendices is risks of differrent generating methods. Should show up in the table of contents.

And yeah, I know it's long....