This article is so flawed in so many ways. The most obvious issue is failing to show the actual safety statistics! I mean, at least start with the obvious starting point: that nuclear energy's record is that it is one of the safest forms of energy. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
There could be a disaster tomorrow 1000x worse than all previous nuclear energy disasters combined and it would still have been net-safer than coal (and this is excluding climate change effects, if you choose to include those.
I mean, if you want to then say "we got really lucky over the last 60+ years" I guess you can do that. In 1970, sure there were a lot more unknown risks. That was 52 years ago.
There could be a disaster tomorrow 1000x worse than all previous nuclear energy disasters combined and it would still have been net-safer than coal (and this is excluding climate change effects, if you choose to include those.
I mean, if you want to then say "we got really lucky over the last 60+ years" I guess you can do that. In 1970, sure there were a lot more unknown risks. That was 52 years ago.