The anti-human sentiment in this context is generally referring to environmentalists who thought large amounts of clean nuclear energy would cause population gr

The anti-human sentiment in this context is generally referring to environmentalists who thought large amounts of clean nuclear energy would cause population growth beyond the carrying capacity of Earth wrt other resources. I doubt it's meant to be insulting. 1) Just because the fission chain reaction can be used as a weapon does not mean you should be anti-nuclear reactors. We've seen that lots of people can make nuclear bombs without having any reactors at all (just need some centrifuges) so why are we avoiding making clean nuclear energy (which has positive clean-energy attributes that mirror the destructive side) for a misplaced fear of weapons? 2) Temporary evacuations should happen in events like Fukushima and then people should be given the data on the dose rates at their home compared to scientific studies showing the likelihood of a dose rate causing them harm relative to other risks. I guarantee lots of people would choose to move home much sooner than they are if they had this information. Chernobyl is kind of another story because there was no containment on those reactors. Reactors should either have containments or be inherently stable designs. Chernobyl was neither. Still, climate change has the potential to cause much more damage than these accidents. 3) Waste disposal has several known responsible and appropriate technical solutions. We just need people to stop blanket-stating that it's a forever unsolvable problem so we can move forward like the Finns are doing [1]. Then there's deep-borehole disposal which is not developed but very promising. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... 4) This is what the parent is talking about; the industry has been regulated and delayed by professional anti-nuclear intervenors for decades and then they always say: "Ha! Nuclear is bad because it's expensive and always has delays!" The industry itself could certainly do better (the Japanese and Koreans had/have been building plants in record time and on budget and are shocked when they hear US contractors sue each other on a construction site), but the cost overruns are not inherent to nuclear energy. That's a social thing. 5) Nuclear advocates definitely need to win trust; the carbon-free, super-safe energy source is currently less popular than straight-up burning oil. Anti-nuclear people need to catch up on some of the latest low-dose health effect studies if we want to talk about lying. The linear no-threshold model is what we've been operating on since inception and it's very conservative. As we've gathered more data, it makes sense to re-visit such models and see where the waste is in regulation and design.