I think the flat amount of direct and indirect death, as well as considering the amount of people who's quality of life has diminished, but not enough to kill them.

Other energy industries have these problems too, so I have no idea how they actually compare.

“At least I am not a mass murderer.”

How do you measure that? Why do you think is higher for nuclear than for other technologies?

Finding climbers for static towers is already hard enough. Death rates of cell tower climbers are 10x that of normal construction workers (cell tower climbers have the highest death of all construction jobs). Of all those deaths investigated by OSHA, almost 40% involved no rules violations -- speaking of that, only 3 of those found in violation were fined more than about $25,000 with most being fined less than 10k and some only being fined a few hundred dollars).

Unlike static cell towers towers, you have lots of moving parts you can't really stop and high-voltage power sources you can't completely shut down. There's additional risks of fires and even disintegrations.

Unlike cell towers, I can't find any overall statistics. The closest I can find is [this organization](http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm). It's crazy to realize that at least one windmill suffers structural failure every month. Two catch fire and (since there's currently no way to put out a fire hundreds of feet in the air) burns down. Two more will suffer blade failures whipping sections of blade out at up to 325km/hr (200mph). There will even be someone who is injured due to ice being flung by the blades and hitting someone over 150 meters away. This is all before counting the couple people killed every month. And to top it all off, they don't even have complete statistics.

Underwriters Lab (the official unofficial US government lab) in 2015 claimed a 0.54% blade failure rate worldwide, but with almost 500K units, that's still thousands of units every year (I'd note that they don't actually have reliable data on the 42% of all wind turbines that happen to be located in China). [source](https://www.enr.com/articles/42352-are-four-wind-turbine-fai...)

To quote another [article](https://www.power-technology.com/features/golden-hour-parame...)

> There were 737 reported incidents on UK offshore windfarms in 2016; blades falling off, turbines tipping over, falls from height, vessels sinking in ice-cold water, groundings, onboard fires, helicopter crashes make up just some of the reports. The most common accounts were of hand injuries, while fingers cut off, arms crushed, broken bones, fractures, lifting injuries and teeth knocked out also occur. Non-accidental medical emergencies include strokes, heart and asthma attacks, and anaphylactic shock.

> Of all the incidents at UK offshore windfarms, the majority happened on operational sites: only two were recorded during windfarm development in 2016. Around 44% of offshore medical emergencies occurred in the turbine region, while just over one quarter were on vessels. The number of fall-related injuries was 110 or 15%, of which 95 (13%) were during heavy lifting operations.

Then there's the issue that wind turbines seem to have a realistic lifespan of only 12-15 years instead of the 20-25 years claimed and lose half of their total power output over that 15 years. [source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9770...).

Solar panels have a relatively low direct body count, but mining then melting down entire mountains for their rare earth elements has a severe environmental impact (not to mention the environmental toxins and toxic waste produced during the actual manufacturing process).

In the entire existence of US nuclear power, there have only been around 60 incidents which resulted in death or damages over $50,000 (and only 13 deaths overall) and unlike wind power, every little thing about nuclear plants is logged thoroughly. Even the "waste" is safer to store on average than the caustic waste from manufacturing and will be refined and reused once cheap mining sources dry up.

Rather than scaring everyone with nuclear FUD, we need to embrace it as the most promising and safest green energy technology we have.

EDIT: I'd also give a shoutout to concentrated solar which could be a great green daytime alternative with some caveats (variable power output, still needs nuclear power at night, much more geographically limited, etc).

Sure it's an anecdote, but the point is China has very loose safety standards and cuts a lot of corners. She's much more okay with losing a few people here and there.

Uh, [citation needed].

> ... they had to hire racialized folks from the city to go in and make repairs...

Racialized... folks?

> He also stole reactor sealer to seal our basement from spring leaks and our basement leaked.

That might be because, and I'm speculating here, your basement isn't a reactor. I've heard that a sealant for a specific kind of material may not work on literally any other kind of material.

> Canada has very loose safety standards and cuts lots of corners.

That's just pretty objectively false.

> That's just pretty objectively false.

Don't they still mine asbestos in Canada?

[1] https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/canada-b...

There is one plant being built at Flammanville. It is 11 years over schedule and 400% over budget, and still not certain that those will be the final numbers.

The Flamanville 3 EPR nuclear reactor is a mess (and I've seen it first hand, working on one of its subsystem a few years ago). The regulations bodies, aka the ASN (Agence de Surete Nucleaire) played its role, and uncovered various issues, most worrying, defects in the reactor vessel itself (and also there was some attempt by the manufacturer to hide these defects). And it's only one of a long chain, the were others like concrete being poured without/insufficient rebar or improper composition, various welding issues on pipes or machinery. And each time, it was not some minor mishaps requiring a quick fix but a major mistake requiring undoing what was done, redoing it properly and causing months of delays.

Basically, this is an Engineering and Project Management failure. On this kind of giant projects, logistic, coordination and management is key, the design is also key (system of systems, interfaces between systems etc) and it failed spectacularly here.

From the political side, despite some calls to just stop the construction from minor parties, the commitment from the politicians to see it built has remained strong all along. And there was also a deep commitment from the French state to the Nuclear industry, with the government bailing out Areva just a few years ago.

The Finish one is not better off, with the same kind of delays. The Chinese ones are in production (after significant delays) but 1) They learn from the mistakes of the first twos 2) They have probably better experience in large projects given the past construction boom in China 3) Some issues were probably put under the carpet as the Chinese government is not exactly renowned for its openness.

Which is extra significant if it's also the cheapest.