>Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Actually, coal irradiates the surround

>Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong. Actually, coal irradiates the surrounding area when it is working properly, and it adds to global warming at the same time, it can do both! To be clear, the major concern with nuclear disaster is ground water contamination. That is, the reactor melts through and the corium gets into the groundwater, contaminating it with radiation. After initial evacuation, most of the elements that spread have a relatively short half life and decay quickly. The heavy elements are too heavy to get blown around, but they can irradiate other things (like water) that can get around fairly easily. Chernobyl was a special case because they actually blew up the reactor, and their graphite moderator caught fire, so you got lots of radioactive smoke. Most plants use water or heavy water as a moderator, so at least it doesn't catch fire in a disaster (the steam cloud isn't that great either, but at least it doesn't stick to stuff). Anyway, agree with your anti-fragile opinion in terms of the current (ancient) reactor designs. We really need a new design if it is going to be viable over a longer term.