[woodruffw]

> 1) Please stop using fatality comparisons when talking about radiation incidents - it's disingenuous. You need to look at total impact, including negative outcomes like cancers and reduced life expectancies rather than outright deaths.

It's my understanding that nuclear power performs very favorably in these metrics as well. Living near a coal-fired plant isn't very healthy, and probably exposes you to more radiation anyways[1].

I don't really follow the alternative power source news, but I don't think anybody's argument actually stops at "it's better than the worst." Most people seem to think that nuclear power makes a good choice because it's a consistent source of power and has a proven track record (see: France).

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

[jfengel]

Comparing it to coal is precisely "better than the worst". Coal is the worst option, and even the US is phasing it out rapidly.

(Developing countries are still using it, and China is still acting as if it were a developing country. But coal simply isn't the alternative to nuclear any more in any developed country. Even natural gas is better for the environment than coal.)

[woodruffw]

> Comparing it to coal is precisely "better than the worst". Coal is the worst option, and even the US is phasing it out rapidly.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The claim is only that there are lots of sufficient reasons for nuclear power that don't stop at "it's not the worst."