Arlaerion

There was a massive tsunami in the area killing almost 20k people, the power plant was not their first concern.

The guy died 4 years after the accident from lung cancer, not very common in nuclear power.

I never agreed that its outmoded or old tech.

At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more. Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

For the total number of airships, the loss of life (and airships) is quite high…

I explicitly wrote “civil nuclear power”. I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.

Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll. 31 immediate deaths 60 attributable in the following two decades

The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:

The Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Dr. Thomas shares that contrary to popular belief there is a scientific consensus that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in the deaths of less than 55 people as a result of radiation.

The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).

More people died in airship incidents than in civil nuclear power.

E: typo

I got an error there. They are built by water sources but 11 of 15 power rely on evaporative cooling via cooling towers. There is the possibility of dry cooling, which doesn’t use external water.

• Geological stability is not relevant with on site storage in spent fuel pools or dry caskets.
• If you keep risk assessment up to date that is not a problem (tsunami walls, emergency pumps/generators automatic shutdown, …)
• Security risks are of a concern not only for nuclear power plants. Think of pumped hydro. The Ukrainian reactors at Zaporizhzhia have very high standards of protection. Thick concrete walls, steel containment. It would be cheaper to start nuclear attacks, than to try to create a nuclear catastrophe by damaginh the reactors. But better save than sorry, hence the warnings by IAEO.
• Ground stability is a factor in every building. Especially high ones with small ground area and strong forces acting on them… like wind turbines.

You do know that you can build nuclear power plants almost anywhere?

Four of the french ones are not at water sources. The biggest in the US is located in a desert. Katar has nuclear reactors.

Why would site selection be difficult?

What energy source ist fast enough to build? Wind? PV?

France constructed 56 reactors in 15 years (1974-1989) with about 60GW capacity.

Germanys nuclear program was faster in constructing capacity than any phase in the Energiewende.

So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.