so if they're at worst, both equal, at best, one that releases a small-size (compared to earth) contamination zone every 3 decades while the other incrementally worsens the climate and atmosphere everywhere, why are you arguing in favor of the worse option?
You failed to understand the point the person made above, there are equal only in the rare case that nuclear fails.
So you have nuclear plant that produces no CO2 and could produce radiation in a rare event , and you have a coal plant that produces CO2, other pollution in the smoke and radiation 100% of the time, similar with gas and other fossil fuels.
Honestly if you have 2 choices , live near the coal plant and it's smoke and radiation or live near a nuclear plant that will fail only of a super rare earthquake what do you chose ? Do you chose 100% harm vs 0.1(number I invented) harm ?
