Since you brought up pollution, you should be more specific about what that pollution is. Every form of energy has potential for pollution, and the pollution f

Since you brought up pollution, you should be more specific about what that pollution is. Every form of energy has potential for pollution, and the pollution from fossil fuel is entirely different from what might be considered pollution from nuclear. The nuanced view is to weigh the pros and cons of each form of energy and evaluate the acceptable level of risk. The simplistic view is to state that pollution is bad and call it a day. Nowhere did I say that pollution doesn't matter, but apparently you have that perception for some reason. > What you also seem to ignore is the scale of risk. This is a description of what you have been saying, not what I've been saying. > Nuclear has tail event risks (Fukushima, mass pollution) I challenge you to go look up exactly how many people died or got cancer as a result of Fukushima. The amount of damage to human life from all of the nuclear disasters that have happened combined doesn't come close to the amount of damage caused by fossil fuels. > Unlimited energy with zero risks and pollution, I would totally agree. If it takes a completely hypothetical scenario with completely unrealistic expectations, that's incredibly childish. Zero risks? Are you kidding? That's what it takes for you to agree? Incredible. > More risks: unstable countries using waste to build nuclear weapons. As if they're not already capable of this?