1 Fukushima is too many, no?
The alternative isn't "no Fukushima", the alternative is hundreds of thousands deaths per year by burning coal. It's just not "one huge bang" so people don't realize it, because understanding abstract dangers is hard.
The Fukushima disaster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_di...
The earthquake: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_...
Zero known fatal injuries out of 20,000 were caused by the reactor.
If I've done the math right, a nominally operative coal plant over Fukishima's 40 year lifetime would have caused 5ish deaths.
Fukishima did cause a few cases of cancer, but so does nominally operative coal.
People can gripe about tail risks from environmental pollution when it's not displacing a worse modal risk. Right now it's unreasonable to. Proliferation risk is concerning; most of the rest is just scale insensitivity.
The results will likely surprise you.
