[Tomte]

Even if the "new reactor types cannot possibly do harm" was true, that's exactly what you told us the last few decades. Every reactor was safe. It was physically impossible that all those safety systems could be overridden, defective, whatever. Impossible.

And every time we saw that it's not true.

After several decades of this we don't trust you anymore. As no sane person would.

You might even be objectively right. But your safety arguments werde wrong the first two hundred times. Why listen to your explanation of your two hundred and first attempt? Let's try something else where experience doesn't virtually guarantee us that we'll be burnt.

[0xfeba]

And coal mining and production is safe?

Nuclear has the fewest deaths per kWh, period. It's really simple. Now, the cost of bringing new ones online is prohibitive, but shutting down existing ones was really dumb.

[FooHentai]

I thought one of the major pro-nuclear power points was that old reactor designs were flawed and new designs address the issues. Isn't that point consistent with shutting down existing reactors?

[diamondlovesyou]

No. Considering Chernobyl on its own, treating all radiation exposure cases which are above the statically insignificant cancer rate threshold as deaths, and coal is still more dangerous per kWh. [Source](http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclea...).

After the accident, Chernobyl continued to provide power to Ukraine, up until it's last reactor was shutdown in 2000.

[chiefalchemist]

Deaths is just one measurement. Certainly making a sizable geo area uninhabitable is another. What about cancer is things go sideways? These are both legit insurance risks.

I'm not trying to take an anti nuke stand, just pointing out deaths isn't the whole of the risk.

[dotancohen]

It should be made clear that Hydroelectric has made an order of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear.

Coal has made _three_ orders of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear.

And whereas fish may thrive behind a dam, nothing humans can eat will grow in a coal strip mine, ash flow, or other coal-related topography change. Whereas in nuclear exclusion zones, wildlife flourishes.

[chiefalchemist]

Yes and no.

But first, I agree there are always trade offs. We have alao been horribly slow in finding better energy.

As for hydro + coal and uninhabitable land. I think it depends on what you define as inhabitable in the first place. Much of it is done in obscure (?) areas that few care about. Of course, this contributes to out of sight out of mind. None the less, this should be considered.

On the other hand, nukes are closer to population, as well as near water. And, as mentioned, for these more people are more aware of them. You can also thank Hollywood for the fear(s).

[learc83]

I think you really need to think about who the you is that you're addressing here.

It's very easy to dismiss any information you disagree with if you over-generalize like that.

For example: "You told us the earth was headed for a new ice age. Why should we believe you now when you say it's getting too warm?"

[zmix]

I agree, but I think it's pretty obvious he was addressing everyone who said: "Nuclear power is safe, those who say otherwise are not realistic".

[learc83]

That's my point, they're conflating everyone now saying "nuclear power is safe", with some people 60 years ago who said "nuclear power is safe". I didn't mean that who they were addressing was unclear.

[ntsplnkv2]

You're right, I'm also sure you don't drive a car because of how unsafe they were 50 years ago as well, nor do you fly planes, because why trust them now when they lied before?

> And every time we saw that it's not true.

Every time? That seems a bit excessive does it not?

[norlys]

Thank you. There are also studies about childhood loicemia near nuclear power plants. Of course, these studies could be wrong or lied, but I' rather assume that the ones with a financial interest in nuclear power are downplaying its riscs on a massice scale.