If we have a choice between a safer technology and a more toxic and deadlier technology, why should we pick our battle and continue to use the more deadlier? It

If we have a choice between a safer technology and a more toxic and deadlier technology, why should we pick our battle and continue to use the more deadlier? It is more dangerous to live near a coal plant than a nuclear plant. That people perceive the risk to be the opposite is a problem of perception. It may be surprising but I don't directly like nuclear. If there exist a non-fossil fuel solution that is safer or cheaper than we should use that. My interest is strictly against the continuation of fossil fuels, especially when there exist safer alternatives today. Countries that are rich and stable should not be burning toxic chemicals for heat and energy, and yet all of them still do just to save a bit of money or to avoid upsetting voters. Burn fossil fuels for heat and electricity, and lets be scared of all that spooky nuclear. This has been the dominant culture in energy politics for almost all of Europe, and it is only in very recent time that the wind might start to change. Before safe technologies can be invented, the first step is to address that culture. Even if nuclear was made perfect safe with no failure points, as long people still choose a more deadly source for energy then it won't make a difference.