That is a mistaken view; he's actually talking about liability. The risk of nuclear is smaller than the damage of the status quo, but it is so unexpected that w

That is a mistaken view; he's actually talking about liability. The risk of nuclear is smaller than the damage of the status quo, but it is so unexpected that we hold people liable when it materialises. The damage from coal (not risk because the risk is technically 0 - the bad outcome is guaranteed by design) is substantially greater than the risk of a nuclear disaster. We just don't hold anyone liable for fossil fuel damage because then society would collapse. It is pretty stupid that we don't move to nuclear and highlights the inability of the anti-nuclear crowd to do cost-benefit analysis.