Agreed that lumpiness is an issue and so in practice you wouldn’t want to argue for coal levels of death-per-MWh.

This concern is, I believe, the crux of why folks are overly-conservative - the few well-known disasters are terrifying and therefore salient.

Plus it’s hard to campaign for “more risk please”. But we should bite the bullet; yeah, more of the stuff you list would happen. And, the tradeoff is worth it.

▲

thoroughburro 3 days ago | parent [-]

> yeah, more of the stuff you list would happen. And, the tradeoff is worth it.

Next to you and your family, then, since you’re happy trading with their risks.

▲

XorNot 3 days ago | parent [-]

I don't know why people think this is a "gotcha"?

I would happily live next to a nuclear power plant, the reason not to is mostly to do with "it's still an industrial site". But like, lakeside land where I'm up or down stream from it but can clearly see it nearby? Sure.

It's one of the rare forms of industry where if I was ever worried about contamination a cheap portable device will warn me remotely. Unlike say, Asbestos and heavy metals...one of which there's a bunch in my current backyard.

	▲	adastra22 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		If being next to a nuclear plant meant id NOT be next to a coal plant, and therefore have better air and better health, I’d gladly take that trade.