Yes that's the point. Dam failure is much worse and actually the largest event of fatalities related to power generation was a dam breaking. Yet people are not against dams at all, even though they are not much better in terms of risks.

It's entirely irrational just like people who are scared of flying.

Irrational, perhaps, but also totally understandable and unlikely to change.

People fly but it requires a huge amount of trust to put yourself in someone’s hands like that, where if something goes wrong the results are catastrophic. People have faith in the regulations, they trust that the pilots are well-trained and the planes well-maintained, to the point where the chances of catastrophe are so small it overcomes their natural fears.

The same is true of the nuclear industry. The only thing making nuclear a remotely popular option is the extensive regulation which makes the risk to the consumer so small it outweighs their fears.

And the trouble is that it is up against solar and wind, where the cost is much smaller, and the absolute risk - if you discount people who choose to working to install them - really is very close to 0.

I think this line of thinking comes from a westernized world where all water is controlled.

Many dams have been built around the world not for power generation, but to control flooding. The power generation is a secondary concern.

In aggregate dams have saved far more lives, by managing flood waters.

The great thing in 2025 is that we don’t need either the dam or nuclear risk for our electricity needs.

Just build renewables and storage and the risk for the general public is as close to zero as we can get. The only people involved in accidents are those that chose to work in the industry installing and maintaining the gear.

We should of course continue to focus on work place safety but for the general public the risk of a life changing evacuation, radiation exposure or flood from dam failure does not exist.