If you think being called anti-nuclear is a shallow dismissal of your views; then I might suggest reading my post on the assumption I'm not talking about you? The anti-nuclear crowd might object to "anti-nuclear" in the sense they'd rather be called "pro-something" like the anti-abortion crowd being pro-choice, but they're hardly going to take "anti-nuclear" as a slur.

Someone who thinks being anti-nuclear is shameful won't choose to be anti-nuclear.

> Or refute me at an intellectual level, maybe I can learn a thing!

I assume you're serious, so by way of unsolicited advice - write shorter posts and lead with the top 1 or two best arguments you think you have. A good refutation is normally longer than the post it replies to, so when you post the kitchen sink you aren't going to get a good refutation.

Although in this case I'd recommend looking up ... pretty much any online argument about nuclear power in the last 30 years. Those all have standard intellectual refutations.

> Oh: and if we don't "overregulate" then we have perhaps another Chernobyl. That happened exactly because the regulation AND the execution of the regulation was too lax.

What we did instead has people sometimes yelling at me that we're going to get millions to billions of people killed, destroy the planet and doom us all to violence and war. I got "burning my future" once which I thought had a ring to it. A Chernobyl every decade or so would be an enormous improvement over what we have actually done.