can we agree that simply living in the area will result in more deaths than having a nuclear power plant there will?
Stop comparing natural events to choices that are made by people. As someone else said, its fU
They are all choices though. You choose to live in one location instead of another. You choose to generate power by burning coal or via nuclear materials. You choose to bike to work or drive a car or take the train. All of those are choices. All of them have risks and potential consequences.
A little secret that I've managed to learn after working in the health industry for some considerable time now....you can live anywhere you like and eventually you will die.
Yes. So perhaps we should assess the risk of dying one way versus dying another way and compare it to the pros connected to the choices in front of us. Instead of just pointing to the risk of nuclear power, let's look at the risks and costs of coal, or solar, or wind. And let's also compare those to not generating any power at all
. How many populations can't be sustained at all if there isn't power? Remember where we're talking about.
Replace those nuclear plants with coal. Assess the total long term effects. You'll find that even with the very very rare event like this added in, nuclear is still safer by a long shot. It's not like it's a choice between putting a nuclear reactor on a fault line or not. It's a choice between putting a nuclear reactor on a fault line, or a coal fired plant, or natural gas, or some other form of power generation. All have risks. All have costs. And they're all susceptible to big natural disasters.
Its not that you die. Its how you die. Its how the children you produce are born with no legs or their brains on the outside of their skulls. and then their children (if they even manage to reproduce at all) are born with no eyes or kidneys. Or how you spend the last weeks of your life. Wether that is surrounded by family and friends, or attached to a ventilator in an isolation unit waiting for you lungs to disolve as your children look at you thru a 2" lead impregnated window...
And that is not about emotions. That is what happens.
Um... That was 100% about emotions. Really? You write about dying alone while you lungs melt, but you're not making an appeal to emotion?
How about how many people die of illnesses related to coal every single year? I'm not sure if it's a great comfort to their loved ones that at least they didn't have a one in a million chance of dying from radiation poison instead.
Those are the risks of having nuclear power stations go bang.
Which happens very very infrequently. The direct harm caused by other alternatives happen all the time. Tell the thousand (more?) people who die from illnesses from coal related work every single year that their lives were worth sacrificing in order to prevent the 10 people from dying of radiation poisoning every 10 years or so.
If you're being unemotional, that is.