This comment is more clear. Above, you spoke about nuclear power in the abstract. It's good to separate out the discussion like this. Because nuclear power can

This comment is more clear. Above, you spoke about nuclear power in the abstract. It's good to separate out the discussion like this. Because nuclear power can mean building new safe reactors, or it can mean keeping really old ones running. > But we are considering the safety of nuclear power as it exists today. Even then, it's not a homogeneous blob of risk. There are different reactor designs, run by authorities of different competence levels, built at varying distances away from cities. There's no substitute for a case by case analysis. I sense a hand-wavy aspect to the argument. I want some harder facts. What percentage of currently live reactors have an equal or greater risk than the Chernobyl plant? Is it 2% or 50%? Such distinctions make a big difference to the tail risk.