Well. The article is very interesting. I'm already convinced about the nuclear-aspects of it. However, it does not "shows-up" super clearly.
Especially : “The Alar tale illustrates a basic limitation in the ability of our mind to deal with small risks: we either ignore them altogether or give them far too much weight—nothing in between.” is kind of misleading. As you suggest Fukushima, etc, it seems it falls in the second category. However, because you are not talking a lot about it, it may fall in the prior one.
The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daminozide also leads to something we believed as harmless, which in the end wasn't. So .. To me -not native speaker - I could read whatever I wanted in this sentence. :)
Also, if we stay nuclear-centered : "Molten Salt Fusion Reactors, please?". What are you exactly looking for with this technology ? Compactness ? Something else ? :)
Unfortunately this guy has very few intervention in English and is mostly French-centered. However, I would highly suggest to see one of his intervention (subtitled in english, if the translation is correct enough ?): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovJemYKcdKt7PDdptJZfQ
And, well, the question is also about the scientific-evidence-based that are lacking medias that incidents have been misleading for a large part of the population.
Coal is killing hundreds of thousands of people per year, as so alcohol and smoking do. Even if - fact based - nuclear incidents produced only thousands of deaths (not yearly, but in total : nearly 0 for Fukushima / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... , questionable for Chernobyl, etc.); people are really scared for "media"-related reasons.
Definitely, it would be much clearer in the article ! :)
A shame that renewable energy production's deaths are not counted .. It's hard because it depends where it had been produced. But this would have been super nice to find such statistics !
Especially : “The Alar tale illustrates a basic limitation in the ability of our mind to deal with small risks: we either ignore them altogether or give them far too much weight—nothing in between.” is kind of misleading. As you suggest Fukushima, etc, it seems it falls in the second category. However, because you are not talking a lot about it, it may fall in the prior one.
The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daminozide also leads to something we believed as harmless, which in the end wasn't. So .. To me -not native speaker - I could read whatever I wanted in this sentence. :)
Also, if we stay nuclear-centered : "Molten Salt Fusion Reactors, please?". What are you exactly looking for with this technology ? Compactness ? Something else ? :)
Unfortunately this guy has very few intervention in English and is mostly French-centered. However, I would highly suggest to see one of his intervention (subtitled in english, if the translation is correct enough ?): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovJemYKcdKt7PDdptJZfQ