Uh.... Actually the risk and potential damage of nuclear is very easy to calculate. "Extremely low." And that's counting Fukushima, because the alternatives

Uh.... Actually the risk and potential damage of nuclear is very easy to calculate. "Extremely low." And that's counting Fukushima, because the alternatives are all much, much more dangerous. We're talking about a technology which, in terms of deaths per TWh of installed capacity, is ten times safer than rooftop solar. Yes, it's safe, yes, it's clean, and our best estimates of the entire costs, including subsidies, say it's significantly cheaper than other clean options. What's beyond comprehension to me is why people refuse to look at what's truly happening in Japan, and somehow think that it does something other than prove nuclears potential. And it's trivial to show that more people will die in Japan due to their switch from nuclear power than will ever die from Fukushima. That's the real horrendous "desaster". In the real world, nuclear is quite clean, extremely safe, and moderately cheap. That's cold, objective fact.