Not sure I've seen a HN post before where so many people in the comments have clearly not read the article. Not even the summary of key points right at the top.
The piece is not anti-nuclear.
Also, risk is not binary. Finding out the true risk of something does not mean it's high risk and therefore negative. You can assess the risk of something and conclude that the risk is low and generally overblown, which is the point of the article.
The piece is not anti-nuclear.
Also, risk is not binary. Finding out the true risk of something does not mean it's high risk and therefore negative. You can assess the risk of something and conclude that the risk is low and generally overblown, which is the point of the article.