I agree that it's complicated. Radiological hazards are indeed pretty unique in the human experience. I disagree that any given release has unpredictable impac

I agree that it's complicated. Radiological hazards are indeed pretty unique in the human experience. I disagree that any given release has unpredictable impact though. Top scientists around the world have studied the effects of radiation on living things and the environment in elaborate detail for 80 years. We have vast amounts of good data. This really became political around 1953 as the radioactive fallout from the big atmospheric thermonuclear weapons became extremely serious. The entire environmentalist movement itself was born out of protests against radiological hazards from weapons testing. Where climate science has the IPCC, heath effects of radiation has UNSCEAR [1], a UN-organized international group of top scientists. [1] https://www.unscear.org/ https://www.unscear.org/ The number one argument for nuclear is that it dramatically reduces air pollution deaths by displacing fossil fuel. The carbon-free nature you mention is argument number 2 in my mind. Number 3 is that it can run 24/7 and be deployed in a wide variety of geographies. As for polluting the ocean at Fukushima, I recommend seeing what Jim Conca has to say on it [2]. He's one of the world experts in nuclear waste. [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-reall...