>According to your logic, because people purposely use guns to kill people, it's not clear if we should have guns for self defense. Jump to conclusions much? Projection? That's your logic not mine. You didn't understand what I said. Nuclear power may be safe and cost effective in its prime operating conditions, but the whole of nuclear power is surrounded by extreme hazards. Nuclear fuel and waste must be transported and stored. Ohio shows how the transportation process is vulnerable to disasters and how unintended consequences can evolve from poor decisions, malice and cutting corners. Fukushima shows us how unsafe the situation can become when the right conditions emerge and cause long term and widespread damage. That shit isn't what I call safe and cost effective. Most nuclear energy proponents only concern themselves with melt downs, but both Fukushima and Chernobyl shows us that melt downs are far from the only extreme dangers. Combine the narrow safe operating margin of nuclear power with diversity hires running the plant, kike owners/operators not giving a shit and corrupt governments willing to cover it all up and nuclear power is the longest lasting perfect storm of public health and safety danger. It will stay dangerous for thousands of years even. So go ahead and do your cheerleading for nuclear power. It's not much different from cheerleading for niggers and troons in the workplace. You want it to be the correct answer, but the reality is that your good intentions will eventually lead to disasters of epic proportion, like Fukushima. Would you go for a swim in the areas where they are releasing the contaminated water into the ocean from that "safe" nuclear accident? Would you drink it? I know you wouldn't do that in the Ohio river.