The Fukushima cleanup, unique in history and resulting from radically unlikely natural disasters, cost less than half what the fuel it replaced that decade would have
This is without considering the cost of climate change or all those prevented deaths
The hard truth is: even a predictable cause can trigger a disaster. And many aren't predictable.
Fukushima is by many criteria a "lucky" case, as many reactors were properly shutdown when the wave came, operators reacted globally adequately...
The question isn't "is a disaster possible?" but "when, and of which magnitude?".
This patently insufficient ability to foresee also sheds a light towards the "we know that dangerous nuclear waste will not be a problem for anyone during the next 100000 years or so".
Renewables can do the trick without all those threats.
In France the 'nuclear success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewable sources must replace it.
Moreover those victims are past ones, and a new major nuclear disaster may cause many victims while solar-panels induced major disasters aren't even possible.
Every nuclear disaster is unique yet nobody is willing to bet on any of them being the last. Fukushima was also unique in that it caused coal usage to skyrocket in Japan - a problem Germany is not currently suffering from.
To me, the way to prove that something ISNT safe is to shout loudly about how safe it is and to absolutely refuse to shoulder the costs of anything going wrong.
This is what the nuclear industry does and the government backs them.
No nuclear disaster in history has added up to a bad single bus accident.
.
> and to absolutely refuse to shoulder the costs of anything going wrong. \n This is what the nuclear industry does
This is, of course, the exact opposite of true. Nuclear power is the only kind of power expected to carry full disaster insurance (not even dams, which have death counts in the six digits.)
No, nuclear isn't fully insured, in any nation (there are funds, providing for damages up to a low-caped total amount).
Power-producing dams failures are very rare and preventable, and albeit they are way more numerous and old than nuclear reactors the history path is clear:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I'm not interested in holding a discussion with someone who denies the Banqiao dam burst deaths, and wants to take unsourced blog statistics by a single dude over the World Health Organization and the United Nations
I am not interested in someone who says "here's a list of numbers, the United Nations must be wrong, the causes are a matter of polemics."
Polemics are generic archetypal verbal attacks. The United Nation's health statistics do not get interpreted in terms of verbal attacks.
You make vague references to "Russian academicians" and claim they said things, but don't provide evidence. The Russian academics still haven't admitted Kyshtym happened.
There is a point at which if someone listens to clowns but not the world's authorities, they and everything they believe should just be discarded without further commentary
The science is clear: arguing with an anti-vaxxer or a flat earther just drives them further into their delusion. The common sense is also clear: the regular person does not get satisfaction, but rather more frustration, at the end. The current position of psychology is that the reason anti-vaxxers exist is that they have genuinely mis-identified their addiction to argument as being seen as knowledgeable, and that even when legitimate experts show up with evidence, their unwillingness to budge convinces them that they're even righter. They really think this makes them look good.
Psychology currently frames this as the result of severe self doubt, as "you need to argue with me so that I can show myself that I could win."
Of course I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who denies basic facts, and refers vaguely to evidence they haven't provided. Nobody should. That's how you get flat earthers.
Deniers don't deserve argument, and trying to talk to them like normal people hurts them mentally.
It's an island nation, and we're calling a tsunami "radically unlikely"? Given the time frames involved in cleaning up an event like what happened in Fukushima, once every 100 years is not very unlikely.
Makes all the propaganda about how safe it truly is ring a bit hollow when they dont pay for their own damn insurance.