Leaving out the two most significant accidents in the history of the technology shouldn't be the default...
Literally the previous sentence I was talking about the danger in the US of fossil fuels, then I wrote about the danger of nuclear and then move on to worldwide.
Nothing I wrote was false at all. It's almost like you're intentionally trying to misread my argument to paint me as disingenuous.
I also don't understand why the number of people that have died in nuclear accidents only in the US is a remotely useful metric in the context of the discussion.
You're trying to ascribe malice and dishonesty because you happen to disagree with me. I don't know why the internet does this to people
Sigh. I made it clear in the first comment that I don't disagree with you. I would love to see wider adoption of nuclear power. The sentence that you wrote was inaccurate, and I felt that more accurate wording would improve the quality of the debate. I don't see the point in engaging any further on this.
The sentence devoid of context is misleading!!
But the thing is cherry-picking a single sentence without its proper context is misleading if not downright dishonest itself.
I was clearly talking about COAL/FF DEATHS IN THE US. Why would I then go on in the very next sentence to compare that to WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR DEATHS?
Then in the NEXT SENTENCE, I bring up Fukushima and Chernobyl and say basically "if you want to count them then...."
Nothing about my post was misleading.