Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

No, it isn't, since we also have many, many civilian reactors that have operated for decades safely.

What's more, even if we take into account all of the harm done by all the nuclear accidents that have ever happened, including Chernobyl and Fukushima, the harm done by nuclear energy per unit of energy generated is still orders of magnitude less than the harm done by fossil fuel energy per unit of energy generated. And that is only actual harm that has already occurred--it doesn't take into account potential future harms (such as climate change--I personally don't think that's a very significant component of the harm done by fossil fuels, but I'm not arguing that point here, because what I've said is true even if any such potential harm is ignored--any potential future harm to the climate from fossil fuels just makes them look even worse than they already do).

The price premium paid by the military for nuclear power is for operational flexibility, not safe operation. The Navy's capital ships need to be able to steam anywhere in the world without having to worry about fuel. The Navy's submarines need to be able to operate submerged and undetectable for months at a time. Nuclear power is a necessary enabler for those operational capabilities, so the Navy simply can't tolerate any deviation from proper procedures since it would jeopardize those capabilities. The fact that this approach also leads to much increased reactor safety is a benefit, to be sure (and in the early days of Navy nuclear power, when much less was known about reactor safety than is known now, this benefit was indeed a key selling point for allowing the Navy to operate nuclear ships and subs), but it's not the primary purpose. If the greatly increased operational capability had not been there, the Navy wouldn't have bothered with nuclear power in the first place.

> handling nuclear reactors and nuclear materials, and the US Navy is the only service that does that

That's not entirely true. I'd be willing to bet the Navy has the most experience in this regard, the Army still runs reactors and the Air Force handles nuclear material. Both investigating implementing reactors in future plans:

"Fast Burst Reactor (FBR) — The FBR is an unmoderated and unreflected cylindrical assembly of uranium and molybdenum alloy. The FBR produces high-yield pulses of microsecond width, as well as long-term, steady state radiation, to closely simulate the neutron radiation environment produced by a fission weapon"[1]

"The Defense Department is looking to develop miniature nuclear reactors to supply power to domestic military bases in an emergency, and later to power expeditionary forces"[2]

The other services are also heavily involved in National Laboratories that do a lot of the nuclear research for the federal government.

>the total harm done by all such incidents involving radioactive materials is orders of magnitude less than the total harm done by releases of materials connected with fossil fuels

Point noted and I don't know enough to disagree. But the issue wasn't which form of energy was the most safe, it was whether the military is inherently better at managing such systems because of their organizational structure. The military may foster accountability but I don't personally think this is attributable to a chain of command, but rather due to the emphasis on leadership principles and mature processes. There's plenty of civilian organizations that have a well-structured chain of command.

>I think the primary factor is simple unwillingness to tolerate any deviation from proper procedures. The existence of a military chain of command might not be essential for that, but it certainly makes it a lot easier.

Agree 100%. Out of curiosity was that officer actually fired (discharged/loss of commission) or reassigned? Reassignment is pretty common on the civilian side when people show themselves incapable of executing duties appropriately.

[1] https://www.wsmr.army.mil/testcenter/dir/Pages/Survivability...

[2] https://www.airforcemag.com/pentagon-working-on-mini-nuclear...

> By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country.

Again, by the contemporary numbers. Contemporary trends cannot be translated into broad sociological statements about human beings. This is basic historical knowledge. In the US alone, the return to cities is a fairly recent phenomenon. Cities were considered undesirable and suburbs were heralded as having a better quality of life as recently as the 90s.

Historically, movement to cities has been driven almost entirely by economics. No one wanted to live in a cramped city slum and there was no "choice" between two equal options, one in the city and one in the country. It was more a choice of continued rural poverty, bordering on starvation, or a polluted, miserable, economically-better existence in a city.