> I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back

> I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting electricity. Precisely. It's also crisis like Fukushima—using generations-older tech—that impedes development of safer nuclear generation technology (i.e thorium reactors, or even just better light-water reactors). > I find it callous for you to brush aside the suffering of thousands of people by "The situation isn't good". Perhaps I should have used stronger language. The situation is bad, most definitely, and Japan will be reeling from the effects for decades to come. Especially in the immediate area, and more depending on the extent of ground water contamination. I'm just saying that the lack of education about nuclear power prevents us from moving forward with it, when deaths or disasters linked with other forms of power generation don't get the same media attention.