I have 3 issues with nuclear power plants.

1. Centralised power generation is and will always be a focus of military conflict
2. Nuclear power plants are not fully covered by insurance because such an insurance is too expensive. So the risk calculation of insurance agencies tells them to not risk it.
3. No one wants nuclear plants in their area, or at least the storage sites.

And yet, people will tell me how nuclear is the way to go. They ignore all these reasons, while insisting that nuclear plants are safe.

This feels like when people tell you that we need to help the poor but they get mad when our taxes go up, and most of us don't do shit for them on their own. It is so cheap to speak.

I mean, we COULD manage it properly, but we also NEED to slowly chip away at that safety budget each quarter to please shareholders.

I mean, last quarter you did it on 5% less than the previous quarter, surely you can do it on 5% less again?

Immediate silent death is grossly over exaggerating. Even in Chernobyl which was absolute worst case scenario that can’t happen with modern designs, the “immediate death” area was directly around the plant.

The concern is cancer in 30 years, not immediate death. Not that trying to downplay cancer, but it really only makes it uninhabitable for humans who live much longer than 30 years. A lot of wildlife basically doesn’t notice since their lives are shorter. It doesn’t mean we should be cavalier about irradiating the environment, but there is no need to go around calling it immediate death.