[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.