[piplikoc]

Yes, there were a lot of deaths from these nuclear disasters, they were horrible, we should have avoided them. But nuclear energy is still much less deadly than fossil fuels. Air pollution-caused diseases are lung cancer and stroke for example. I think nuclear plants have become much safer and there is more international regulation to maintain their safety. I recommend this excellent video on this topic from Kurzgesagt: https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM

[amarant]

Not only is nuclear safer than coal, it's safer than solar! (in terms of deaths per Gwh produced)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

[ketzu]

One of the points of the toplevel comment is exactly

> This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths.

So adding a statistic that only focuses on that seems not helpful to me. Are there some available that give a broader analysis (that might not be as catchy for social media)?

[amarant]

What other metric would you use though? It seems to me the top-level comment is arguing "I think nuclear is scary so therefore statistical risk analysis is invalid"

I disagree.

[ketzu]

Impact on eco systems and economy, injuries, and maybe other effects that are not easily compressed into a single number. I don't disagree that Deaths/GWh is one of the most important statistics on the safety of energy production. But while we often quantify safety of roads/vehicles by deaths/billion length units driven, one assumption is it is highly correlated to other safety indicators such as injuries. Coal will probably be even worse considering these statistics and nuclear will probably still fare well.

One example I am aware of: Germany still monitors contamination of mushrooms and other wildlife in bavarian soil [1]

[1] http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:0221-20191007...