Ok, so you admit that: 1) increase of background radiation is not harmful to "nature" (usually defined as "all living things, arbitrarily excluding humans"), o

Ok, so you admit that: 1) increase of background radiation is not harmful to "nature" (usually defined as "all living things, arbitrarily excluding humans"), or at least less harmful than human presence 2) nuclear plants, merely by existing, tend to limit surrounding human population, and in case of accident totally eliminate it 3) the presence of humans is worse for nature than literally the worst nuclear plant accident ever The original argument I was arguing against is "nuclear plants are bad because they're bad for the environment". However all evidence points to nuclear plants being good for the environment. You can't build nature reserves "wherever you damn please" because most habitable areas are already populated by humans. We can however build more nuclear plants, which has a two-pronged effect of reducing carbon emissions and limiting population around them, naturally creating nature hotspots.