"It never has occurred, therefore it never will."

*clap, clap* Almost as brilliant as when you blamed a cure for the disease.

And worldwide: We're not really sure. Not even the Russians know the true toll from Chernobyl.

Actually studies tend to show the numbers quoted for chernobyl are overestimated...

I mean... look at the total death tolls caused my the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan.  You'd be surprised.

Outside of the people killed there is like... virtually no genetic mutation on offspring.

And even then the effects are very lowley estimated....

with 1 person in thousands dieing.... and this was with evacuation efforts that made Katrina looke like baywatch by comparrison.

You forgot about the vastly elevated cancer rates at Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

And as far as the people directly killed at the site: I'm not sure I trust the Soviet numbers. For obvious reasons.

For the first generation... and then that's about it.

Furthermore... reactors are pretty much meltdown proof now a days.

First line: Yeah, but that's the sticking point. Most estimates for deaths are in the thousands. I'm not sure what the second or third generation has to do with that.

Second line: Not really. To begin with, nothing is ever "proof." And meltdowns aren't even the only safety risk. Used fuel rods are "hot" for centuries. The costs associated with burying these in mountains are enormous, but the alternatives are worse.

There are safer alternatives that are just as or more clean, have fewer up-front costs, and are more profitable. Nuclear power is going to, rightfully, go the way of the sail boat and the horse-drawn carriage soon. The disadvantages are too great.

So you want to compare a power plant that was in incredible disarray with shitty design/technology to begin with and a nuclear bomb to how a modern power plant would effect people?

*clap, clap*

None of those alternatives will be around for at LEAST 10 years.

Also... nuclear plants can be built much quicker then the time you quoted.  It's just the government that holds it up due to it's general incompetence in getting through steps and approving construction.

Umm, no. What the hell? Seriously, you're a nice, smart guy, but no. A power planet isn't a fucking house. If you want it done right, it takes a VERY long time.

France has the most advanced nuclear power industry in the world, and it takes about seven to eight years from start of construction to beginning of operation. This isn't red tape - the French government actively supports and subsidizes them.

And, of course, nearly every one of them has been found to have "defects," and most of them have had "incidents." There is no such thing as a "safe" nuclear reactor, and if you want to build them fast and dirty, don't build them anywhere near me.

Stop fearmongering nuclear energy. Its not that dangerous. We've had nuclear plants in the U.S. for over 30 years now and nothing has happened. More people have died from oil wells and natural gas explosions. Handling nuclear waste properly is extremely important though.

In many ways it is less harmful to the environment than carbon sourced energy as well. We just need a way to get rid of nuclear waste (like a cheap way to shoot it into the sun - which we may be able to do if we get a working space elevator and can shoot rockets off from outside the atmosphere).