Electrolytic reduction of carbon dioxide to yield multicarbon products

[NNadir]

6. Seven million people die each year from air pollution.

The answer to your question is contained in whether or not one believes that any death from radiation is worth a million deaths from stuff we ignore.

Chernobyl was 34 years ago. The immediate death toll was 31 people; over the long term, perhaps a few thousand people will ultimately have their lives shortened significantly.

Let's say that the death toll of air pollution averaged, over the last 34 years, five million people per year, a lower rate than what is currently understood.

That works out to 170,000,000 deaths from air pollution in the 34 years since Chernobyl.

Of course, the fact that we don't pay attention to one, and microexamine the other makes no difference in the actual numbers.

And then there's climate change. Do you grasp how serious, how much death and destruction will be involved in comparison to Chernobyl?

Here are some things that have killed more people than 60 years of nuclear operations: Automobiles, aircraft, fatty foods, water, house fires...

Do we routinely assume that cars, aircraft, fatty foods, water and houses are "too dangerous?" Do we say any of these things should be phased out? (For the record, I do believe that cars should be phased out, but that's just me.)

I'm a scientist. I am trained to think critically. In general this means rejecting journalistic impressions, which are often geared at making people not think critically but rather in emotive and/or sensationalist terms.

Look at politics. "But her emails..."

I look at journalism about nuclear energy in exactly the same way, "...but her emails..."

You know what the difference between so called "nuclear waste" and dangerous fossil fuel waste is? Fossil fuel waste kills people.

If you're serious about energy and the environment - and I claim I have done the work to show I am - the first step is to think clearly and critically.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect; it need not be without risk, to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

Here is the comprehensive list of causes of mortality on this planet, published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet, part of a series updated about every 4 years:

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

It's open sourced. Anyone can read it. Feel free to let me know how many deaths derived from all the bugaboos raised by anti-nukes. Then come back and tell me what "safe" is.

Speaking only for myself, I think there are a lot of things more scary than Chernobyl. Climate change is among those:

Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003 (Plus de 70 000 décès en Europe au cours de l'été 2003) (Robine et al Comptes Rendus Biologies

Nuclear energy saves lives: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)