[asd4232]

Nuclear is still better than coal and gas. At this rate we will never limit temperature below 2.1C pre-industrial, so anything that gets helps getting rid of fossil fuels ASAP is a good deal.

Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. Several natural disasters in the 2000's have killed way more than it did.

[tharne]

> Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad.

The problem with statements like this is that we don't actually know what a worst case scenario truly looks like. The day before Chernobyl, the worst-cast scenario, by definition, not as bad as Chernobyl. Similarly, the engineers who built Fukishima were aware of tsunamis and earthquakes and built the plant to withstand what was considered the worst case scenario at the time. Then an even worse case scenario happened.

[adrianN]

It's fairly simple to find an upper bound for the damage a nuclear incident can cause. Take all the radioactive material in the reactor and put it in the most dangerous location, like the air or an underground aquifer. I don't understand why you think that the worst case scenario somehow got worse after Chernobyl.

[roamerz]

Wasn’t that bad. Wow. Maybe in a Excel spreadsheet kind of way it wasn’t that bad but what a horrific experience for those involved - humans, animals and the environment.