Ukraine is definitive proof that as long as conflict is a possibility, nuclear reactors aren't safe because they will always be targets. And all those safety measures aren't guaranteed against direct attack or sabotage.

It doesn't have to occur constantly just once in one thousand years in a worse enough way is all it takes to make a country unlivable. That isn't worth the risk, no data represents this. It's common sense.

But common sense flies out the window when political and social narratives go against it.

YEA you can certainly question it because it's bullshit. Here is the actual comparison you guys are giving.

World ending asteroids rarely ever hit the planet, so they are actually safer than fossil fuels cause less people have died to them.

THAT is the data legalism bullshit you people keep telling me.

Your data is ether wrong, politically driven and or probably done by companies who have their hands in the energy sector.

We can have multiple oil spills and disasters with fossil fuels all of that is fixable, you arn't playing with fire with radiation because burns heal. How is this hard to understand Chernobyl is SMALL compared to the Reactors we have now, what France has like a hundred of them too. Imagine if a World War actually happened.

We wouldn't need nukes to fuck the planet because our energy would do that for us once it starts getting targeted with strikes.

How do so many of you people not understand those comparisons make zero sense, you WANT this to be the case.

Bad faith argument ignoring reality.

The reason I said underground water is because that isn't set in stone, ironically.

Fault lines happen, drilling happens, erosion happens. And this isn't taking into account air currents if it goes that way, or if misplaced waste just sits in an area. I wonder how much was dumped in the ocean honestly.

Talking about the disaster that's already happening to justify turning the other way for the potential world ending disaster of radiation is just as bad as when they did the same for Oil, Lead, Coal etc.

And people can live on top an active volcano, that doesn't make it livable for a nation.

And Fusion is good, not the Nuclear we have now. I feel like people who advocate for Nuclear don't understand those are two very different things.

So because of politics they get wrapped up together when they should be seperate.

We have Hydro, Solar, Air, we can use those with Oil and Gas until Fusion is figured out.

Makes no sense to risk the world by putting hundreds of Nuclear Reactors everywhere.

The city is unlivable.....

You people can not be comparing the sun to possible radiation contamination.

No one is looking at the prospect of say that Ukrainian reactor melting down from Russia sabotage the same as oil spills.

And again it's not about numbers, you can say one disaster would double it, that's not the issue, the issue is that's it. it's done, you can't fix nuclear fallout.

Imagine if enough contamination got into the ground water around New York. What then? It's not just "oh the numbers are going to increase" no it's your done. That's it.

Planes are safer statically than cars but if you put half the worlds population on a plane and said planes almost never crash so it's fine. That's not a good bet.

That is such a bad faith argument.

Of course oil kills more we use it more and used it more and are more careless with it.

The data doesn't exist on this because we've only had one "major" nuclear disaster.

So you can't use data to math this out. You use logic, you know what it does, you know the effects radiation has, you know how hard it is to clean that's what matters.

Yes nuclear waste is a big deal You can have multiple oil disasters and we can clean it up, cities will still be livable.

All it takes is one time, just one time for radiation to seep into underground water from whatever source, not properly contained sources, earthquakes, war (such as ukraine which proves it's always a possibility). Technology will never take away all chance of risk of our current nuclear energy there is always a way it can go wrong.

And the whole point is if it does go wrong now you've just doomed how many hundreds of miles to a nuclear wasteland. It's not worth the risk. Fusion if I recall and was not lied to is safe but until Fusion becomes a thing we shouldn't use Nuclear and certainly shouldn't promote it's use in developing countries that are cutting corners.