> Safety is not about deaths alone. You can’t ignore the massive costs and [...] Actually, if we're talking about safety, we can. There are some good total cos

> Safety is not about deaths alone. You can’t ignore the massive costs and [...] Actually, if we're talking about safety, we can. There are some good total cost analyses, since governments also want to know how power can be produced most cheaply. The US and UK both published reports about this with somewhat varying (but ballpark similar) numbers. But anyway, we were talking about safety. > [...] and negative personal effects Okay, please bring on the stats then. I agree that this is relevant to the safety discussion and, thus, the discussion whether we should use nuclear fission going forward, but I never see anyone cite comparative stats on displacement, illnesses, etc. All I ever see is that nuclear kills very, very few people per TWh compared to current energy sources, making it seem very attractive to build as a replacement when looking at this metric. You'd have to have a huge number of people falling ill or being displaced (but not dying) due to nuclear disasters or uranium mining to make it better than our current energy sources.