I do not expressed any conclusion, I argued on the given example that is not even comparable to the danger of what nuclear energy comes with, we do not even started the topic here, there is the fact that this can be used with some effort to build bombs, that you need to store the waste over so many years that no one … really no one can comprehend this, then there will be climate based disaster, we will run out of uranium, there will be political changes and so many other factors that we have not even talked about and I have absolute no interest because this whole defending of a toxic system leads to nothing and no one can change my mind here.

• There is no risk if you apply common sense. In nuclear energy case, you cannot escape or apply counter measures because they need to be constantly cooled which brings us to the point that you need to build them near water or water resources and if something goes wrong, like in Fukushima, stuff will leak one way or another into the ocean, lake or other water resources you prefer. This is not the case with renewable energies sources, you turn them off, they are off, that is it, they by itself posses no danger.
• I talked about disasters and catastrophes and there are none with renewable, again you turn it off and it is off and no further damages will come to anyone. Claiming human error implies a disaster applies to everything and is not per-see a disaster. The water example here does not scale a single bit because most of the cases are from 19th. century, others killed no one and in lots of cases human error applied here, lack of maintenance etc. A nuclear power plant typically, due to its nature gets more maintenance, remove this part and put the maintenance into the damn and there will be no human error which causes problems assuming you applied common sense and evacuate all people around it even if it breaks. The keyword here is risk management and not hybris. There will be of course earthquakes and other unpredictable events and it will hit the next nuclear power plant and the next damn, but the risk here for a damn except that you need to rebuild it after it breaks is none existing. Again they still need to cool Fukushima and again the water for the cooling process still goes straight into the ocean. What you prefer, the nuclear BS or rebuilding a damn, I prefer last thing each time friend.
• There is and there never will be any end solution for nuclear waste, this is the bottom line. Even newer generators still need cooling, still produce waste and still depend on resources that run for maximum 1000 years. There is nothing to debate here. NOTHING. I already linked the research in other threads and you can cry here all day, will not change and I already used very very optimistic numbers and rounded it up and not down. In is even more likely that we deplete resources much much faster in the next 200 years.

nuclear energy is one of the safest methods of power generation, with literally hundreds of times less deaths per energy unit compared to fossil fuels, which cause tens of millions of deaths through air pollution

This is compared against coal and not renewable energy sources. Water, like we talked about produces no air pollution compared to coal. We also did not talked about fossil fuels, the thing is uranium will run out in next 130 years.

Air pollution is in general a human created problem. Most pollution is created in and around bigger cities and industries, this is irrelevant to our discussion here as there is no scientific proof possible when car based pollution and coal based industrial pollution causes what exactly and how many people die since both mixes in the air.

in most cases, shutting down nuclear power plants causes deaths, not prevents them, because to some degree their power generation capacity is going to be replaced with fossil fuels, which are, again, orders of magnitude more deadly

I call BS, cancer statistic are rising since nuclear power plants, there lots of statistics that your chance to get cancer near power plant raises dramatically and and and. We are also not talking here about replacements or fossil fuels, we are talking about green energy. Earth heat for example, which constantly works and there is no limit, of course even the universe has limits but it does not run out in the next 100k years.

• Nuclear is not clean.
• Nuclear energy is not the answer to climate change.
• Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World’s Change and the World’s Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges
• Cancer Risks near Nuclear Facilities: The Importance of Research Design and Explicit Study Hypotheses, see also Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities based on

I said everything here I had to say and people downplay it, which I expected. Nothing people can bring forward is new to me and nothing will change my mind as some fundamental problems and threats that nuclear energy comes with can be solved and this is the reason I blocked the community, and I am out now here from the discussion, since I cannot extract any useful information that brings us any step forward. People tend to downplay it or find weaknesses in renewable, this is not what I am interested in. I am interested in showing that nuclear energy is not an end-solution and that is has huge dangers, which I did now and no one here claims that we have the perfect alternatives overnight. It is a team-play effort and I am shocked to see that people still supporting nuclear energy. I at least expected that we come to an common ground that nuclear based energy sources are not the answer and that we should go other ways, also to keep peace on earth and maybe even get rid of nuclear weapons but this is me - an idealistic fool, sadly people still think that nuclear is the way to go.

I call it madness and genocide.

Doing the same thing and expect different results - definition of craziness. - A. Einstein.