default_user

Thank you, I did not know that.

Just to clarify, I'm not for coal either. It's just an issue that is never properly discussed in mainstream debates.

You may be joking, but seriously the possible irreparable damage is indeed an argument for me that gets insufficiently addressed by the pro nuclear people.

Off course, more people die because of coal power plants and off course the net loss of land due to global warming is bigger compared to nuclear due to rising sea levels. But you can still go to those flooded places (albeit in a diving suite) and not get cancer... This is not the case for the Chernobyl area or Fukushima. This place is lost and cannot be used by humans for a long time. This cannot not happen when using coal power plants.

Take a small country like Switzerland. We cannot afford to lose any land. You can do something about the death of people in the coal mining industry and you can also do something to reduce the atmospheric CO2. But once a nuclear accident happens the land is lost and nothing can be done about it.

And this point is never addressed properly. I don't care about the probability, I care about the possibility.