> Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances Sure, from very small to ten times that, still very small. > some of them

> Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances Sure, from very small to ten times that, still very small. > some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists OK, we can accept that eventually one or two small regions will be not suitable for living. We already do a lot of that when we build hydro power plants for example. Hydro power plants consume a lot of land. > May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others? Chernobyl, no, it is radioactive and dangerous. Fukushima surrounding is very safe, it was evacuated only because there were ignorant people in Japanese government. Anyway, what's the point of the question? Nobody is supposed to live where it is not safe, like nobody lives in Chernobyl exclusion zone.