That's because none of the data posted is relevant to my point. I'm arguing that it is extremely unethical to subject people and the environment to any significant risk of nuclear disaster. When the risk is such that multiple incidents are all but guaranteed over a long time period (like 50 or 100 years), we are effectively agreeing to the principle that productivity and efficiency are greater concerns than some hundreds or thousands or millions of lives (we can't predict the number) and worth destroying and sacrificing those lives in exchange for. I reject this principle, as any sane person should. I believe coal energy should be evaluated on the same basis.
The reason to focus on nuclear over coal power and other bad industrial practices is that nuclear still has a lot of support among educated people. Coal has been discredited. No one thinks we should build more coal plants (aside from those who profit from them). But the amount of cheerleading you see for nuclear among a population like HN's is incredible. I don't know if it's a testament to the industry's financial weight or what, but it's clearly getting a pass where other harmful industries are not. That's bad.
The reason to focus on nuclear over coal power and other bad industrial practices is that nuclear still has a lot of support among educated people. Coal has been discredited. No one thinks we should build more coal plants (aside from those who profit from them). But the amount of cheerleading you see for nuclear among a population like HN's is incredible. I don't know if it's a testament to the industry's financial weight or what, but it's clearly getting a pass where other harmful industries are not. That's bad.