"[...] and when it hits, it takes out many people even wiping out entire communities, if not regions for hundreds of years." First of all, how many people has

"[...] and when it hits, it takes out many people even wiping out entire communities, if not regions for hundreds of years." First of all, how many people has nuclear taken out, even including Chernobyl? According to the WHO and the IAEA, Chernobyl was (or rather, will be) responsible for about 9000 deaths. This includes the people killed by acute radiation exposure and the expected number of people killed by premature cancer from sub-acute radiation exposure over a period of 20 years. This comes out to 450 deaths per year. By comparison, the Bhopal disaster killed approximately 3000 people immediately, and 8000 people in total from gas-related injuries. It's not at all clear to me that nuclear is more dangerous than other "everyday" technologies like chemical plants and oil refineries. As for the effects of radioactive contamination, well, chemical contamination can be just as long-lived. Just look at your average Superfund site. There's nothing special about the risks of nuclear energy. We tolerate the exact same risks with many of our current technologies. It's just irrational fear tied to the anti-nuclear weapons movement that's driving the freeze on new nuclear construction.