I'm stating that to date all mining and processing of resources involves deaths, multilations, long term disease, etc.
I'm asserting that to date the cumulative deaths from the nuclear power industry do not yet equal the deaths from a single Bhopal disaster (pesticide processing, half a million people exposed, many dead).
I'm putting forward as a simple fact that as wind, solar, batteries, etc continue to scale up from the small sliver of total global energy they currently are to ideally matching the current percentage of coal there will need to be a substantial increase in the tonnages of nickel, copper, lithium, and more that are mined, concentrated, processed and extracted and that comes with substantial increases in the wastes associated with these industries and the known risks to human life.
I would suggest that anybody making a human risk argument on any single portion of the energy industry look broadly at the risks across the board.
It's perfectly fine to chest beat about safety, I'm for it.
It's callously indifferent to only give a damn about a few deaths in a sector not approved while ignoring those in sectors liked.
Statistically it's inconclusive whether slight increases in some zones from a bit below average to a bit above average cancer rates is linked to TMI or to stress and|or increased screening.
What is certain, beyond a doubt, is that within the last week an explosion at a nickel plant in Indonesia left at least 13 dead and 46 injured.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/explosion-at-a...
That's an example of the generally unreported and ongoing human cost of battery technology.
Note Well: I'm not pro nuclear OR anti battery - I am pragmatic about the real consequences of resource mining and extraction having been part of exploration geophysics and global resource mapping for several decades.