> NRC uses a cost/life of $9M when evaluating if new nuclear safety equipment is needed. How much cost has been added to nuclear projects due to additional saf

> NRC uses a cost/life of $9M when evaluating if new nuclear safety equipment is needed. How much cost has been added to nuclear projects due to additional safety requirements? I think it's plausible to say "over 9 billion", as an extremely conservative estimate. Would you object to this? (That's the cost overrun for just one reactor, for context) If so, that means that those additional safety regulations have reduced nuclear deaths in the US by at least 1000 deaths. This does not seem plausible to me, as the worst case for a meltdown in the US with 70s-era designs is not "Chernobyl style uncontained accident" but instead something rather close to Fukushima or 3 Mile Island, purely due to containment structures. Given how many people died from radiation in the wake of Fukushima (literally one - and less than 100 estimated in the counterfactual scenario where there was no evacuation) and 3-Mile Island (zero confirmed), I think it's reasonable to say that there is no way for the NRC's regulations to have prevented even 1000 deaths over the past 50 years.