[akarma]

I think that's exactly what the above commenter was saying in: "European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima."

If a country experiences a nuclear accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima, your "number of casualties is lower than if we moved to coal" argument won't work. Cold numbers won't beat emotion.

Edit: On downvotes, it's very demographically consistent of HN to not believe or want to hear that emotions rule over cold numbers for many people in the world. I'm not saying that coal is better than nuclear (it's not per the numbers), but you need a satisfactory answer when a disaster happens, and rationalizing the deaths of thousands of people as "a preferred alternative to more deaths over time" won't cut it.

[hedora]

It’s more like cold numbers won’t beat lobbying. It’s not “if we moved to coal”. It’s “coal definitely killed more people than Chernobyl every few months for the last 100 years and is now literally burning the planet down, but somehow that’s OK.”

[akarma]

Yes, and that being OK is the magic of how emotions work! That's the exact valid point being ignored.

If you don't have a better response to a catastrophic nuclear disaster than "well, it killed people but coal definitely killed more people over time," then as the commenter said, you really don't have a satisfactory political response [1] to a nuclear disaster.

You're acknowledging the difference in our emotional response between gradual deaths over time versus a nuclear accident, but then hand-waving it away as irrational and unworthy of response, and ignoring that those irrational people form the majority of voters in the country.

[1] A satisfactory political response is one that will keep public opinion positive towards nuclear energy after a disaster.