[GekkePrutser]

> Fukushima by the way, despite repeatedly ignoring warnings of the risks of not being prepared for realistic tsunamis and earthquakes it might experience, survived relatively well all things considered.

Yes most nuclear incidents involved risks being ignored. But I don't see how this is an argument for nuclear. This will keep happening as long as we have this stuff built and operated by the lowest bidder bound to make as much profit as they can.

[vlovich123]

I figured someone works raise that argument because it’s an easy and obvious one but is not helpful.

A) coal power plants ignore warnings too. It’s just that it ends up as a distributed problem of cancer clusters and failing lungs m as by years later that’s harder to link

B) shipping oil creates a lot of ecological and human damage through oil spills

C) even with all the incidents, nuclear is still safer than carbon-based energy sources. It’s death/kWh is closer to wind.

D) gen IV reactors have no risk of runaway reactions negating your argument

So even with the issues they’re still safer and only get safer

[pas]

the argument is that the even the flawed design of Fukushima is good enough, therefore building safer ones should lead to at least as good results