I'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assume

I'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate. The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.