Vs. fossil fuels is a red herring, the debate is whether or not fission is sustainable for the environment. Statistically, you’re right. But the potential harm

Vs. fossil fuels is a red herring, the debate is whether or not fission is sustainable for the environment. Statistically, you’re right. But the potential harm from a nuclear event is clearly infinitely greater than wind and solar. Chernobyl’s fallout restricted farming on 10,000 farms in the UK and affected 4 million sheep exceeding EU becquerel limits at the time. In the UK. In total a land area about the quarter of the size of California was contaminated with over 37 becquerel of radiation. Statistically, it doesn’t happen. But the risk IS THERE. Wind power can’t take half of California's agriculture out of the picture over night. You can’t say fission and wind have similar risk at the tail ends.