Premises exposed in the first paragraph feels completely out of touch with reality to me. You can not compare death by, say accident in building construction,

Premises exposed in the first paragraph feels completely out of touch with reality to me. You can not compare death by, say accident in building construction, with those caused by a major nuclear incident. If anything, deaths caused by such a punctual event is marginal compared to the global effect of nuclear industry, its mines, its million year wastes and the awfully embarassing target it provides in military conflicts. Find me any other industry that is comparable in term of geopolitical risks and ecological impact, and then you can maybe start to make some relevant points. I will buy that nuclear plants are too safe when we have a tracking record of absence of any major incident for a duration of plutonium half-life period. All the said, I'm not fundamentally against use of nuclear energy. But let's not pretend any arbitrary conclusion can be supported by flawed premises.