[arcticbull]

Right in theory except if you look at it holistically nuclear energy does way less harm than competing energy sources. In terms of deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity, nuclear weighs in well below solar, wind and hydro. Even if you include Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and Fukushima. [1] It also generates basically negligible quantities of waste which can be used in different processes or safely stored underground. The total amount of waste produced so far is ~one football field. From the entire history of nuclear energy in America.

Humans are constantly exposed to low levels of background radiation, and surprisingly enough, we show very few negative effects from low levels of exposure even beyond that.

People are much more scared of radiation than they should be.

[1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...

[croh]

We need to invest more in research & safe solutions. Building tools, which by accident can eliminate large piece of humanity and damage nature severly, is not an ideal solution.

[arcticbull]

We've got an almost hundred year track record being two orders of magnitude safer than solar panels. More people die falling off roofs installing solar panels than from nuclear power. We have invested in safe solutions. It's safe. That's why its so expensive to build plants.

I think for perspective you should consider the single worst nuclear incident in the history of the world, Chernobyl, over the full course of time, will have caused 4000 deaths. Meanwhile, the worst hydro incident, the Bangqiao Dam [1] failure led to 230,000 deaths. 57.5X more deaths, and indelibly changed the landscape. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with hydro. Fear of nuclear is irrational. Respect it, don't fear it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam