If Chernobyl and Fukushima are the only examples of major catastrophe they can point to, and one wasn't even directly caused by malpractice of the employees, and the last one that was malpractice was nearly 40 years ago... then I don't even know. The best I got is "they're stupid."
Why are you implying that natural disasters don't "count"? That's not a very pragmatic stance. If an earthquake has drastically different effects on two different power sources, than that is one difference you must consider. I'm for nuclear power, but you shouldn't call people stupid for petty reasons.
That's not my point. We've learned from the mistake of building a nuclear facility that's vulnerable to earthquakes. We know how to build earthquake-resistant buildings. We know how to build dams. We know that building things close to coastal areas puts them risk of being hit by tsunami. We've learned the hard way. We're in a better position now to build them than we were before.
As we are seeing with the Russian invasion, Chernobyl isnt even over yet and is still a major risk.
Others coming right up, unless Russian expansion in southern Ukraine can be contained.
>fukushima
What about it?
The GP asked for reasons why nuclear power might be less popular in recent history, and the parent posited Fukushima as one possibility.
presented a risk they weren't comfortable with, politically