Japan

Well, predominantly they failed by being subject to the 17th largest earthquake and tsunami in recorded history. I remain unconvinced that there's the requisite engineering experience with magnitude 9 earthquakes/tsunami to design rod-based reactor systems resistant to them. It certainly didn't exist when the basic technology of the rod reactor was developed. It's a bit like trying to plan for an alien invasion.Pebble-bed reactors are far more resilient to this sort of thing, incidentally, and aren't subject to meltdowns due to passive (rather than active) safety systems. They literally "fail-safe", whereas rod reactors tend to fail dangerously.

Compared to what? Far more people have been exposed to airborne radioactive contamination as a result of burning coal than by the entire history of nuclear power generation. Extracting and burning coal has killed hundreds of thousands. What about terrorist attacks on malls? What about terrorist attacks on airport security checkpoints?Seems like being concerned about what terrorists might do, and making bad choices out of a fear of potential future terrorism, is not only something self-evidently stupid but something you've criticized the Obama administration for, in the past.

You should take a look at pebble bed technologies. Not perfect, but self-limiting if the reaction heads out of control. Well, I think you're wrong about the incredible destructive potential of coal power infrastructure. (You should read about coal seam fires, too.)And that leaves out the fact that even when the coal power plant is running completely according to plan it's putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, contributing to the inundation of coastal areas and intensity of cyclonic storms, to the pollution of aquifers and atmosphere with heavy metals and particulates, and so on. Well, but that's another advantage of nuclear: you need to mine far less material - and thus need far less mines and miners at risk - to generate the same amount of power.

I think people have this notion of Chernobyl as being this post-apocalyptic wasteland of crumbling concrete and barren soil; denuded, dead trees and brown mud everywhere.And, yeah, a lot of Chernobyl looks like that - because it's in Russia. Everything looks like that!As an aside - glassed deserts? You must have seen way better Captain Planet episodes than I did. All I remember from that show is the little brown kid whose totemic element is "the heart". What the fuck?

You think that grass mowed itself, maybe?

Oops, fair cop. Ignorantly, I tend to think of all former USSR nations as "Russia." Stupid, I know.

What website do you think you're on where you can spew scientific ignorance and not get called on it, out of curiosity?

Coffee House isn't a place for nonsense, actually. And even if it were - don't you think that a thinking person has an obligation to base their conclusions on facts, not fantasy?