[_-___________-_]

Maybe it’s my non-US viewpoint but I didn’t read it that way at all. The fact that you qualified the previous sentence with “in the US” made the next sentence seem intentionally broad.

I also don't understand why the number of people that have died in nuclear accidents only in the US is a remotely useful metric in the context of the discussion.

[jboog]

Why would I start talking about coal deaths in the US, then immediately broaden it to worldwide nuclear deaths. Lie about Nuclear deaths by only counting US, then immediately after lying bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima to prove I lied or something??

You're trying to ascribe malice and dishonesty because you happen to disagree with me. I don't know why the internet does this to people

[_-___________-_]

> You're trying to ascribe malice and dishonesty because you happen to disagree with me. I don't know why the internet does this to people

Sigh. I made it clear in the first comment that I don't disagree with you. I would love to see wider adoption of nuclear power. The sentence that you wrote was inaccurate, and I felt that more accurate wording would improve the quality of the debate. I don't see the point in engaging any further on this.

[jboog]

You're Right!

The sentence devoid of context is misleading!!

But the thing is cherry-picking a single sentence without its proper context is misleading if not downright dishonest itself.

I was clearly talking about COAL/FF DEATHS IN THE US. Why would I then go on in the very next sentence to compare that to WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR DEATHS?

Then in the NEXT SENTENCE, I bring up Fukushima and Chernobyl and say basically "if you want to count them then...."

Nothing about my post was misleading.