We can discuss nuclear results without having to point out with every breath that we shouldn't blow up cities with nuclear weapons. The individual pain experienced by someone who was in the nuclear bomb has little to do with the possible propagation of side effects through generations.
Let's go through five incidents listed here:
(1) GOIANIA ACCIDENT: ... between 60 and 80 people died as a result of the accident ...
OK, that's bad.
(2) RADIOTHERAPY ACCIDENTS: ... Ten deaths and 78 injuries were attributed to overexposure.
The fact that this is called "RADIOTHERAPY" accidents should give you a pause. Radiation was being used to save lives, and when some machines malfunctioned, peoplpe died. Now insert anything else there (say, vaccination or anesthesia) and see how that sounds. Are we saying vaccination is dangerous and should be abolished because accidents lead to death?
(3) THULE ACCIDENT: ... an aircraft accident involving nuclear weapons ... leading to widespread contamination of the area.
Sorry to sound crass, but what military incident doesn't?
(4) CASTLE BRAVO: During a nuclear weapons test, the U.S. military detonated a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb ... ended up having a 15 megaton yield ...
Well, I think we can all agree that detonating a 15MT H-bomb is bad.
(5) THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT
Yes, the infamous radiation accident where nobody died.
-----
I really hate these fear-mongering articles that conflate nuclear bombs and peaceful use of nuclear energy, making the public believe they're both dangerous because they're NUCLEAR. That makes about as much sense as protesting use of asphalt because it's made of the same petroleum that also makes napalm.
I question the way in which the author glosses over the pain and suffering of the cancer victims of these bombings. People were dying in agonizing pain for years and decades after the war had ended [3]. By comparison, outlawed chemical weapons seem relatively humane.
As a society, I believe we need to be vigilant towards attempts to normalize use of these weapons. They may have a role in deterrence, but the relatively low-level wars the USA has taken on over the past 40 years must not make us callous towards choices that will quickly escalate to hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths. With the survivors of the last world war rapidly dwindling, I fear we are quickly losing our global memory of the horror of large-scale conflict and through media, preparing our society to accept a nuclear exchange for which we hav a very limited and untested defense. [4,5] In fact, creating this defense system has spurred our global rivals to develop more horrific weapons [6].
[1] https://www.defense.gov/News/SpecialReports/2018NuclearPostu... https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1204755/escalating-t...
[2] https://k1project.columbia.edu/a11
[3] https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-be-dying-from-leuke...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/us/politics/military-exer...
[5] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-limits-of-u-s-missile...
[6] https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1204814/putins-nuke-...