Hacker News Reader

I agree that their intentions are good, but you have to draw a line somewhere between cost and safety. Nothing we do is completely risk-free. You can get choked eating food, you can get into a car accident, yet food and transportation industries haven't been regulated to death. Why should nuclear be singled out, when it's already the safest form of energy of all time?

It's not that the regulations are ill-intentioned but currently they are preventing safer technologies from being implemented because it costs billions of dollars to get technologies licensed properly.

Fine, now please apply the same logic to coal plants that kill 7000000 people/year.

7 million per year. This seems outright false despite being as pro nuclear as I am.

Can you back this up?

I think the number is actually the total for global deaths in air pollution: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollut...

Coal is not the only contributor, but still a major one:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1632163/670000-deaths...

670,000 reported deaths because of coal annually in China