I wonder if the safety concerns of nuclear power are understated. Whenever nuclear power safety is brought up, Chernobyl and 3 mile island are hand-waved away because we know what caused them and won't do them again.

But there is always another stupid way to manage nuclear power. For example, not providing sufficient protection from Tsunamis in a country prone to them.

Included in safety should be the economic cost of having a city ruined and its inhabitants displaced - that loss of wealth means increased stress and less money to spend on healthy habits. (But conversely, the benefit of lower power costs should be recorded on the credit side of the ledger.)

It's probably all moot, since Thorium reactors appear to be fundamentally safe.