This is laughable. It's almost like saying that nuclear weapons are safer than sticks and stones because nuclear weapons have killed less people. Never mind that nuclear weapons have the possibility of making our species extinct.
A better phrasing would have been, "In a similar fashion", but I've answered it below as well.
A bad nuclear spill into the ocean of significant extent would kill our food supply pretty quickly. And if not "kill" it, it would definitely make it inedible. (Roughly 1 billion people depend on fish for their primary protein.)
A bad nuclear spill into the atmosphere (think a large Chernobyl) would have a devastating effect on human health as well.
Basically, the point I was trying to get across is that nuclear power has extreme tail risks that things like solar won't.
Sure, people will fall off their roof, but that is a distributed set of events, not a concentrated one like a nuclear accident.
> A bad nuclear spill into the ocean of significant extent would kill our food supply pretty quickly. And if not "kill" it, it would definitely make it inedible. (Roughly 1 billion people depend on fish for their primary protein.)
I don't think this is anywhere near remotely possible. Radiation has terrible penetration into water as it is so water is a fantastic radiation shield but even so if you wanted to poison the water with enough radiation to kill off even a tiny amount of the food supply you'd...well I don't know the calculations or even how to do them, honestly, but I'm pretty sure you'd need orders of magnitude more uranium than we've ever mined (and it would have to be enriched, too).
> A bad nuclear spill into the atmosphere (think a large Chernobyl) would have a devastating effect on human health as well.
Hmm, I think to cover enough of the atmosphere you'd need a really, really huge nuclear explosion. I'm not sure how else you'd do it and even then most estimate of the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons wouldn't be able to kill off all humans (though it's a considerable chunk if I remember correctly).
> Basically, the point I was trying to get across is that nuclear power has extreme tail risks that things like solar won't.
Yeah, it's riskier than Solar. Everything is, honestly. Even wind. But we also have a high chance of dying in a car crash and that doesn't stop people and the risk of a nuclear failure, especially in a modern plant, is almost zero. It's far less risky than coal mining especially if you extract the uranium from sea water (though I don't know how easily it is to enrich without mining but then again I'm not a nuclear expert at all).
Likewise for nuclear power accidents.