On the other hand, if one is aware of issues volatility, material compatibility, viscosity one can form an intelligent opinion.
All energy involves risks, the question is one - and I do understand the limited comprehension of this in the general public - of relative risk and probability.
Millions of people die each year from the rhetoric of antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes carrying on insipidly about Fukushima, Chernobyl, and even dumber, Three Mile Island.
Now, arguably, one can argue that nuclear energy produces less energy than dangerous fossil fuels, about which antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes repeatedly demonstrate they couldn't care less, and therefore the death toll from nuclear energy should be accordingly weighted.
Between 2016 and 2024, nine years, according to a spreadsheet I put together, the average production of dangerous fossil fuels from tables in the WEOs from 2017 to 2025, about which antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes repeatedly demonstrate they couldn't care less, produced 4,406 Exajoules of primary energy. In the same period, nuclear energy produced 267 Exajoules of primary energy.
In that period, given the data in the Lancet article I frequently link here about deaths from fossil fuel waste, aka air pollution - excluding the deaths from climate related effects - runs at about 7 million people per year. It is widely understood in some circles in say, the third grade, that 7 X 9 = 63 . Roughly 63 million people died from dangerous fossil fuel waste in that nine years, deaths about which antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes couldn't care less.
In order to be equivalent in risk, nuclear power should have killed 267/4406 X 63 million people, roughly 3.8 million people in that period. Where, exactly, is this death toll from nuclear power in the last 9 years?
Fukushima? The death toll from seawater in the Sendai Earthquake that also destroyed the Fukushima reactors, about which antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes repeatedly demonstrate they couldn't care less, is pretty clear. It is about 20,000 deaths. What is the death toll from radiation exposure in that event? 3.8 million people? Really? Roughly 19 times higher than the combined death toll of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined?
I recognize that antinukes and "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes live and breathe with the appalling idea that it is OK for millions of people to die to insure that no one ever, anywhere, at any time, in the next million, ten million or so years dies from exposure to radiation, but I take that calculation to be a reflection of extreme paucity of a even a shred of an ethical purview.
It is left as an exercise to calculate the number of buses on the planet, to compare to the roughly 10 million that are not powered to greenwash fossil fuels as "hydrogen" by hydrogen, that explode, with the number of operable hydrogen buses that explode before being abandoned as impractical, dangerous, expensive, unserviceable, unreliable, etc.
In the days of the internet, one can easily find the number of hydrogen buses that haven't been mothballed for the issues described above, as well as some insight to the number which have exploded and burned, as well as connected injuries and fatalities. The reason that one can find these things is because hydrogen buses are rare compared to buses powered by dangerous fossil fuels without the exergy destruction involved in reforming dangerous fossil fuels to make hydrogen which so many liars want to advertise as "green." One will not hear of a diesel bus catching fire in the UK, because diesel buses are common, but one will hear about hydrogen buses doing so because they are rare, given the amount of money the fossil fuel industry is willing to invest in marketing ploys to greenwash itself as "green hydrogen."
I trust you're having a nice weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read