[pfdietz]

The reason people demand higher standards is history.

An example: stacks that scrub radioisotopes out of steam from confinement during serious accidents when the steam has to be released to prevent overpressurization of the confinement system. These were added to most European reactors after Chernobyl. The US and Japanese didn't add these, saying the cost wasn't worth it.

Then Fukushima happened. Had the reactors there had these systems, the radioactive release would have been reduced by a factor of 100.

[ben_w]

Given how few people got cancer from Fukushima, this doesn't really help make the fears seem rational.

One death from cancer, 2313 from relocating: https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...

[pfdietz]

One person identified as having gotten cancer from Fukushima. Most of the cancers would be in a larger population and could not be distinguished from the large background of cancers. That doesn't mean they didn't (or won't) happen, or that regulation must assume they didn't/won't happen. Regulation is not like criminal law; radiation is not presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[ben_w]

That's kinda my point — in the court of public opinion, nuclear is unable to win.

This does actually matter despite the deaths from coal etc. being massively higher by the same measures.

[pfdietz]

I agree that fossil fuel use should be aggressively reduced. In the past, that would have meant more nuclear. It does not mean more nuclear now. Reducing fossil fuel use has ceased to be an argument for nuclear construction.

[ben_w]

Yup, I think we're on the same page on this point.

(Almost a pity we never got to see atomic cruise liners and cargo ships, but nobody wanted them in the ports, so…)