Absolutely. The Fukushima disaster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Dai

Absolutely. The Fukushima disaster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_di... The earthquake: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_... Zero known fatal injuries out of 20,000 were caused by the reactor. If I've done the math right, a nominally operative coal plant over Fukishima's 40 year lifetime would have caused 5ish deaths. Fukishima did cause a few cases of cancer, but so does nominally operative coal. People can gripe about tail risks from environmental pollution when it's not displacing a worse modal risk. Right now it's unreasonable to. Proliferation risk is concerning; most of the rest is just scale insensitivity.