They have "reasonable" concerns, but the comparison is spot-on.
Their narrow-minded paranoia has by-and-large resulted in the alternative being coal, which is killing almost a million people every year, and that's just yearly deaths, not the cumulative carbon released into the atmosphere which we'll be paying for for the next thousand years at best.
Just like someone not vaccinating their kids isn't right just because they can point to some miniscule fatality rate as a result of vaccinations (e.g. infections, adverse reactions to vaccines etc.). Those tiny numbers are drowned out by the death rate of not vaccinating.
So pick the shittiest Soviet nuclear design you can think of. If we powered the whole world on that and had 10 Chernobyls every year it would still suck less than coal.
Their narrow-minded paranoia has by-and-large resulted in the alternative being coal, which is killing almost a million people every year, and that's just yearly deaths, not the cumulative carbon released into the atmosphere which we'll be paying for for the next thousand years at best.
Just like someone not vaccinating their kids isn't right just because they can point to some miniscule fatality rate as a result of vaccinations (e.g. infections, adverse reactions to vaccines etc.). Those tiny numbers are drowned out by the death rate of not vaccinating.
So pick the shittiest Soviet nuclear design you can think of. If we powered the whole world on that and had 10 Chernobyls every year it would still suck less than coal.