[ftl64]

History, forgotten. Chernobyl happened just 37 years ago. RBMK had a flawed design, this could've only happened in a corrupt socialist country, you might've said, but then we got Fukushima 25 years later. Now you might say that the new generation reactors will never misbehave in such a way, that we've learned from these mistakes, but accidents happen, negligence and corruption happens, wars and terrorist attacks happen, and any reactor, if mishandled, has a potential to irradiate half a planet.

I'm familiar with both sides of the debate and am not strictly against new nuclear power plants, but you comment is a microcosm of what I think is wrong with the pro-nuclear side of the debate. We do have a history of devastating accidents and close calls, so why dismiss our concerns as those of loud extremists?

[Moldoteck]

Ok please state total nr of people that died bc of nuclear plants disasters(direct and radiation) After that, pls state total people that died bc of fossils pollution+ disasters+ radiation from coal Pls also total nr of people that died bc of hydro disasters(we can add those to solar and wind since hydro is used as backup for them by storing excess) Not debating, just interesting how numbers differ in context of you mentioning chernobyl and fokushima, world should already have stats

[brucethemoose2]

I think this is a valid, serious concern, and I was thinking more of the unreasonable nuclear pollution/waste fear and the "why bother" pro fossil fuel attitude.

But when it comes down to it, I think the metdown risk is worth modest investment in new and existing reactors, in reasonable locations, using low risk designs. The scenario where the world leans too heavily into fission seems impossible.