The discussion I have seen so far on this thread go something like this: 1. Nuclear is really safe. The best. 2. Someone brings up an incident that actually h

The discussion I have seen so far on this thread go something like this: 1. Nuclear is really safe. The best. 2. Someone brings up an incident that actually happened. 3. Apologists excuse the incidents that happened because a. It wasnt designed right b. It was due to corruption c. It was bad planning. etc. We live in the real world here. You dont prove nuclear is safe by excusing every accident and actually using the disaster to prove how safe it is.