I do agree that the overall risk includes more factors than just past direct/indirect deaths, you are right. However, I would argue that simply furthers the cau

I do agree that the overall risk includes more factors than just past direct/indirect deaths, you are right. However, I would argue that simply furthers the cause for nuclear. Firstly, renewables are great and we should of course be investing heavily. However, until we have the what is still non-existing storage tecgnology, we need a base load of either nuclear or fossil fuels. Insisting on a nuclear-free energy supply right now unfortunately means insisting on fossil fuels as a base load for the foreseeable future. Given the greatest risk to humanity's survival is climate change, failing to secure a low-carbon energy supply is a risk that far outweighs any of the risk of using nuclear alongside renewables. We can already see the results of foregoing nuclear - energy in now nuclear-free Germany is seven times as carbon-intensive as nuclear-heavy France[1]. [1] http://energyforhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/European_climate_leadership_report_2017_WEB.pdf http://energyforhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Euro...