Given the price tag for Fukushima is at $187 billion and rising, arguing for deregulation _should_ be a hard sell. The axiom 'safe, cheap, fast; choose any 2'

Given the price tag for Fukushima is at $187 billion and rising, arguing for deregulation _should_ be a hard sell. The axiom 'safe, cheap, fast; choose any 2' doesn't even apply to nuclear. It's more like choose 0. You might be able to argue for some version of 'safe' by talking about actual fatalities from nuclear energy being low, but I think the 5000ish square kilometers of exclusion zones from Chrenobyl/Fukushima should be part of the conversation about 'safety'. Safe for people perhaps, safe for property, apparently not. So maybe choose 0.5?