It just so happens that nuclear is among the safest energy sources we know [1]. It indeed takes a certain level of 'moronicity' to think nuclear should be avoided because of the well known nuclear incidents.
As for the first part of his post: the same source is also quite clear on how deadly coal actually is. Sure, you might not have *wanted* to replace nuclear with coal, that has certainly been a real world *consequence* over the last 40 years. Fuck around, find out.
This is a well documented fact. Japan for example saw a 27% increase in coal usage [2] in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima as it closed all of its nuclear reactors overnight, killing thousands of people annually because of increased air pollution [3]. Meanwhile, the radiological effects of Fukushima killed none.
This is because there's a difference between risk and hazard. We know that spent nuclear fuel for example is hazardous, therefore we made it so that the involved risks are minimal. Much like flying: it can easily be very hazardous to fly, yet we engineered things so that the risk are so low it's actually the safest mode of mass transportation.
Hope this helps.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/japan#what-sources-does-the-country-get-its-electricity-from
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611
Link to post of rainynight65: https://mastodon.social/@rainynight65/114736068050418668
