[S201]

> I don't know how to make them perfectly safe and their have been incidents where unfortunate accidents occur

The issue I have with this argument is that if we don't dramatically reduce CO2 emissions far, far more people are going to die from climate change than nuclear might kill.

Plus, as another commenter already mentioned, the amount of deaths coal is responsible for is 470x higher than nuclear from air pollution alone. We accept these deaths for coal but somehow have a problem with a much smaller number of deaths from nuclear in the theoretical case of a massive incident. I'm not saying there's an acceptable number of deaths to just live with but pragmatically speaking I'll gladly take the proven option that kills orders of magnitudes fewer people than the status quo is already doing.

> Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-saf...