4 ms·

You do NOT get to constantly taut the low mortality rates of nuclear AND call for less regulation at the same time. But even from a very matter of fact point o

You do NOT get to constantly taut the low mortality rates of nuclear AND call for less regulation at the same time. But even from a very matter of fact point of view, I'd rather have 1000 people die every year for 20 years, than have 20.000 people die on a single bad day/week. The economic and social impact is far, far bigger when it can't be "spread out" over multiple years.

hereme888 1y ago
Yes, you do. Especially given the outstanding new levels of nuclear tech and safety. The economic and social impacts are hugely positive. You will see this in the next decade as new facilities come online.
m101 1y ago
Do you even know anything about the relative death rates historically? You should look it up.
- Kon5ole 1y ago
  That's faulty logic, it's like claiming nuclear bombs were safe until Hiroshima. We know nuclear reactor accidents could potentially kill millions of humans, even it hasn't done so yet.
  - m101 1y ago
    Even in survivors of nuclear blasts only 3% died because of the effects of radiation