[hushpuppy]

The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors. The design was bad to begin with and it really didn't have any sort of containment or bunker or anything like that to speak of.

This is why they go on and about the "sarcophagus" required to keep it contained. They had to build a proper containment unit after the fact. You want that stuff built BEFORE you have a nuclear reactor. Not wait until after one blows up.

I, very literally, would love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard if it's off the correct design. A design that depends on physics to be safe, not human operators.

Which is entirely possible. You can build a nuclear reactor in such a way that if the worst possible case happened it would meltdown and dump it's guts into a container. Then just sit there until it cooled to the point were it could be processed correctly.

[ncmncm]

> The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors

Or, indeed, any at all. Thus, also no Fukushimas, and no TMIs, and no Santa Susanas.

[kwere]

you know that "nuclear energy fear" is conceptually equal to "airplane fear" in trasportation?. Both are the most safe by output (kwh vs miles travelled) against deaths in their own categories.

[ncmncm]

Rendering large areas uninhabitable is plenty of harm. And death is not the only detrimental health impact.

[barfingclouds]

Santa susana is bad and something I’m even vocal about, but that was nuclear experiments, not nuclear power

[ncmncm]

It was officially enforced lying about nukes causing a public health disaster. Nukes is nukes, first of all.