The article makes its point well, but its title is unnecessarily polarizing. However little, fission does produce dangerous materials that need to be handled v

The article makes its point well, but its title is unnecessarily polarizing. However little, fission does produce dangerous materials that need to be handled very carefully and stored in places where nobody cares that they are actually radioactive. What if fission was to replace 90% of other energy sources. Would you trust everyone in the world to dispose of their waste responsibly? And while Chernobyl is far in the rear-view mirror, Fukushima is not. So while improbable, it is hard to argue that catastrophic nuclear events won't happen again. Why not acknowledge the tradeoff in the title and say it's one of the cleanest and safest. People get the point about air travel: "it seems riskier because catastrophic failures are much more spectacular, but overall air travel is a lot safer than car travel". No one is saying "planes don't crash"