Prevented mortality from historical and projected nuclear power (2013)
I see this argument made again and again. Just because one is "worse" by selective parameters doesn't mean that the other option is any good either. Can we build safe nuclear power plants? Yes. Does money, greed, pride, and stupidity triumph in the end? Yes. And then you end up with safety precautions and risks being hand-waved just as what is happening in the US where most of the nuclear power plants are operating beyond their designed life span.<p>Why are we ignoring the fact that this geographic location is unusable now? I don't see anybody rushing to get in line to walk into the Fukushima plant or to move back to Chernobyl. There's more damage than immediate death. That environment is lost. It contaminates ground water, soil, the wildlife, the air. You're willfully ignoring the reality and taking the hopeful ideals.