Not a big fan of nuclear because of security and waste disposal issues, but quoting 3 accidents over a span of 60 years as a reason for a blanket ban on a whole class of energy production technologies is hyper safetyism.
I err on the side of hyper safetyism when it comes to nuclear, as when it goes wrong, it can make areas permanently uninhabitable.
Not to say that I advocate for a blanket ban.
But I am concerned that a Chernobyl could happen in China, if the same human failure occurs again, in a command economy, with people afraid to speak up regarding safety issues vs targets.
People still live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and always has as many didn't move when the disaster happened. And it gets safer every year, many work in it, nature thrives in it etc.
The parts that will be uninhabitable for the distant future is really tiny, most of it is already safer than many other parts people live in where natural disasters happens regularly. Living near a coal plant is much worse for your health than living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
Edit: If you don't believe me you can read about current radiation levels in Pripyat here:
Below 1 micro Sievert per hour is normal and harmless to live in, most of Pripyat is already there but some areas like the reactor and the graveyard used during clean-up are much higher. But still the town was just a few square kilometres, anything outside of that is basically safe. Just that Ukraine doesn't need this area for anything, they have no reason to open it up.
Much of the Earth's surface has always been permanently uninhabitable for reasons unrelated to nuclear accidents. Closing off a few more small areas per century is an acceptable risk.
Not to say that I advocate for a blanket ban.
But I am concerned that a Chernobyl could happen in China, if the same human failure occurs again, in a command economy, with people afraid to speak up regarding safety issues vs targets.