Of course people look at those and state something... if you think that the Banqjao Dam failure is the worst dam failure that can happen, you haven't kept up on

Of course people look at those and state something... if you think that the Banqjao Dam failure is the worst dam failure that can happen, you haven't kept up on the news regarding the Mosul Dam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Renewed_stability_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam#Renewed_stability_co...) or Three Gorges (https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-flooding-in-decades-raises-concerns-over-chinas-three-gorges-dam-11595337875 https://www.wsj.com/articles/worst-flooding-in-decades-raise...).. So new dam projects are built to avoid the obviously worse potential outcomes. I'm not sure how people are misunderstanding tail risks this much but NNT would be ashamed. "Regression to the tail" is super important when assessing long-term risk -- and likely points more in favor of nuclear plants due to the insanely disruptive tail risk that climate change represents. But "our repeated accidents didn't end up being too bad" isn't the way to assess them.. acknowledging that the accidents resulted in thousand-mile exclusion zones, but limited loss of life is important but that should directly inform the siting of new plants and the operation of existing ones (and why it's a good thing Indian Point is shutting down).