RMBKs are irrelevant to nuclear reactor safety.

You had a good argument up until you went there.

Even if we don't treat Chernobyl as sui generis, the safety situation with nuclear power is akin to that of airplanes. We don't bat an eye at the quotidian death toll of cars or coal

I've yet to see a nuclear safety argument that doesn't reduce to 'nuclear energy provokes emotional fear'

Oh, it occasionally irradiates a swath of land and renders it uninhabitable? How about coal ash ponds or indefinite mine fires or infamous oil spills or dam failures or even the mining scars...

Happy to be proven wrong, but https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

▲

nicoburns 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> it occasionally irradiates a swath of land and renders it uninhabitable

The big fear for me would be that this happens to a nuclear power plant that is located in a densely populated area (of which there are many). Chernobyl was bad, but imagine the impact if the exclusion zone contained a major city.

▲

peterfirefly 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The only real problem with the Fukushima incident was the (unnecessary) evacuation. It really would be best if they weren't built too close to where people live.

▲

thrownthatway 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Two new AP1000 reactors are being built in Ukraine. During a hot war.

That’s how safe and important these things are.

	▲	nicoburns 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> That’s how safe and important these things are. I don't think something being done in war time is evidence of it's safety! If anything, way tends to encourage more risk taking.

▲

thrownthatway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> it occasionally irradiates a swath

That has happened exactly once.