> if you try to sum up fatality risks of nuclear by referring only Fukushima, and including (in that part of your post) any mention of Chernobyl Good thing I'm

> if you try to sum up fatality risks of nuclear by referring only Fukushima, and including (in that part of your post) any mention of Chernobyl Good thing I'm not doing that then! I'm sure what would give you that impression, since I do quite clearly say "Even if you take the higher estimates for the risk of nuclear (the ones that assume it hasn't got safer since Chernobyl)". But in case there's any confusion, whether or not you include Chernobyl doesn't change things that much. The two studies in that link give figures of 0.07 and 0.01 deaths/TWH for nuclear. In comparison, wind is 0.035. Coal is 25.