I have no patience, none, with carrying on about "nuclear accidents" which have an established record, including the worst ever, Chernobyl (the result of which converted me from being an antinuke into a pronuclear activist) of not causing even a miniscule fraction of the death toll associated with the normal operation of fossil fuel plants.
The "normal" operation of fossil fuel plants, expressed as air pollution, kills millions of people each year without a single peep of concern from people carrying on about "nuclear accidents." That's does not include the death toll associated with extreme global heating, which in my view, is a subject about which antinukes couldn't care less.
I find it ethically deplorable that people embrace a calculus that involves saying it's perfectly OK for tens of millions of people to die each decade from fossil fuels so long as no one ever dies from exposure to radiation.
Nuclear energy does not need to be risk free to be vastly superior to all other options. It only needs to be vastly superior to all other options, which it is.
This is true no matter what sociological or political baggage people want to attach to the issue of energy and the environment. The issue is technical and has nothing to do with political or economic theory.
= new reply since forum marked as read