> I believe the argument is that it may be the lesser of many evils, not that it's harmless. If it's not harmless, perhaps you can point me to some legitimate

> I believe the argument is that it may be the lesser of many evils, not that it's harmless. If it's not harmless, perhaps you can point me to some legitimate harm it caused? Everyone, at this point, defers to predictions someone made decades ago that never panned out. If the reactor saves thousands of lives a year, and kills on average less than one half of one person in its operating span, then it's better than harmless, it causes negative harm Yes, nuclear power actually is better than harmless, statistically speaking Safeguarding the waste is neurotic nonsense that's talked about by people with no medical backgrounds who want to show how wise they are. People bathe in the stuff with no harm, to show how safe it is. If you can't name a single human being who's ever been harmed by it, then it's time to stop safeguarding it. The safety theater has extremely serious negative effects. All this fake safety discussion is why nuclear power didn't solve climate change in the 1980s. Really, genuinely, stop pretending a risk exists. Not a small one, not a comparative one, nothing. It really does not. I know it can be hard to accept, but you literally cannot show a single person in human history being harmed by this stuff. It's safer than bread. It's time to stop the theater. The planet is dying. Put down the fake wisdom.