3 ms·

It's cheatcode with a 1% catastrophic failure rate we rightfully are not using. The article is neglecting a few critical details, to say the least.

• rglover 4y ago
  Then the money being wasted on all of the renewable stuff should be invested in nuclear safety improvements. Problem solved.
• 8note 4y ago
  1% sounds very high for 3 failures worldwide over many many years. What does the 1% represent?
  • LorenPechtel 4y ago
    Three? Three Mile Island wrecked the plant due to government idiots keeping the operators from handling it right. There was basically zero radiation release (if you lived at the reactor fence it was more dangerous to walk across one street in evacuating than it was to stay put), it shouldn't really be counted. Chernobyl was a major disaster caused by blatant disregard for safety protocols that never would have happened in a country with a functioning regulatory commission. The plant operators knew what the boss was doing was insane but there was nothing they could do about it. Fukushima should have had a death toll of approximately zero (because a fraction of a person can't die--the expected death toll was well under 1) but hundreds died due to the politically motivated evacuation of the area. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to eat things grown locally for some time but the threat from simply living there was minuscule. (Not to mention that there seems to be no relationship between background radiation rates and cancer.)