This type of logic also justifies the nuclear bomb, as development of the nuclear bomb is an inevitable parallel to nuclear power. Not against nuclear power, b

This type of logic also justifies the nuclear bomb, as development of the nuclear bomb is an inevitable parallel to nuclear power. Not against nuclear power, but as unwise as it is to ignore data, it's also unwise to blindly trust it without addressing non-quantifiable aspects of it. No other power source can do what it did to Chernobyl. Are we really saying 4 or 5 Chernobyl level melt downs are ok every decade or so because the overall lives saved are greater? Hard to say, and also hard to say whether new technology can adequately reduce the risk of nuclear power. My stance is that although we must move forward with nuclear if fusion doesn't pan out, we should nevertheless proceed with the utmost caution. I feel the attitude for nuclear power on HN is a little too enthusiastic. Tons of people are all in because of some statistical metrics. Just keep in mind that numerical metrics are an accurate viewpoint, but they are just one angle out of multitudes of metrics, many of which cannot be quantified.