3 ms·

I think you're getting downvoted for implying nuclear is evil. Let's look at deaths per kW of different power sources! http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2

I think you're getting downvoted for implying nuclear is evil. Let's look at deaths per kW of different power sources! http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de... You'll find that nuclear is the safest option, even when we include Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuclear also has the benefit of being an "always on"--- wind and solar create stresses on power grids.

zodiakzz 11y ago
I hope this remains true though, Japan has some of the most rigorous safety regulations but Fukushima still slipped through. Indian government is largely corrupt, incompetent and not known for following safety precautions. The risk will be multiplied by every new nuclear plant built there.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > the most rigorous safety regulations but Fukushima still slipped through The Fukushima plant was overdue for a complete upgrade. The seawall was also supposed to be raised. It was an ancient 50 year old plant that got hit by not just one of the largest earthquakes Japan has ever seen, but also a massive, catastrophic tsunami. The fact that it took all those factors to knock the plant out gives me great confidence in nuclear power. Newer plants would not be susceptible to those kinds of issues. Short of a meteor crashing down on one (or an actual act of God), newer plants are completely safe. Safer, in fact, than any other.