We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Why not the thousands of people who died of dam break, the millions who die of lung failure due to exposure to polluants, or, the elephant in the room, the dozens of millions whoe die and will die of climate change?
Sure, it's very sad that a handful of Soviet and Japanese technician perished in accidents, don't get me wrong, but why such an irrational focus on nuclear accidents when a single dam break (and still, hydroelectric energy is among the safest of the safests) caused more casualties than nuclear energy in its whole life?
> that are not present in other forms of modern energy generation
That's just plain wrong.
> and hoping no one accidentally stumbles onto it.
I, too, often randomly stumble on nuclear waste depots 400m deep under the surface. Such a way to waste my Sunday.
> They also require massive amounts of concrete (bad for the environment, locally and globally)
While otherenergy sources are maid of fairy tears?
> and absurd amounts of space.
Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?