Well, this is certainly relevant to Feynman's essay.
You argue that nuclear power is safer than other forms because there haven't been any accidents that have killed a lot of people, yet. I would guess you would put the odds of a future accident at a probability similar to the NASA managers mentioned by Feynman. Feynman would respond that past avoidance of accidents doesn't mean you can say the probably of future accidents is negligible.
If nuclear is so "safe", why does the industry need liability limits where the taxpayers pay any damages above some minimal amount? Reactor operators should just buy insurance for the maximum possible damage an accident would cause. Of course they'd shut down if they had to do that.
You originally claimed that the fallout from bomb testing was "a rounding error" compared to the fallout from a nuclear accident. Now you accept that the radioactive cesium from Fukushima has tripled the cesium in the Pacific from all 2000 bomb tests? Not exactly a "rounding error". (although I agree, outside the immediate vicinity of the accident, the cesium isn't especially dangerous)
Regarding economics, simply look at the trends. Solar panels are getting cheaper at an insane rate. Nuclear plant construction costs have doubled over the past ten years. Even completely amortized plants are shutting down in the US because they can't compete, about five in the last year or two. Any taxpayers or ratepayers funding a new plant will never get their money back, as solar will be so cheap by the time the plant is ready to start up it will be instantly mothballed.
You argue that nuclear power is safer than other forms because there haven't been any accidents that have killed a lot of people, yet. I would guess you would put the odds of a future accident at a probability similar to the NASA managers mentioned by Feynman. Feynman would respond that past avoidance of accidents doesn't mean you can say the probably of future accidents is negligible.
If nuclear is so "safe", why does the industry need liability limits where the taxpayers pay any damages above some minimal amount? Reactor operators should just buy insurance for the maximum possible damage an accident would cause. Of course they'd shut down if they had to do that.
You originally claimed that the fallout from bomb testing was "a rounding error" compared to the fallout from a nuclear accident. Now you accept that the radioactive cesium from Fukushima has tripled the cesium in the Pacific from all 2000 bomb tests? Not exactly a "rounding error". (although I agree, outside the immediate vicinity of the accident, the cesium isn't especially dangerous)
Regarding economics, simply look at the trends. Solar panels are getting cheaper at an insane rate. Nuclear plant construction costs have doubled over the past ten years. Even completely amortized plants are shutting down in the US because they can't compete, about five in the last year or two. Any taxpayers or ratepayers funding a new plant will never get their money back, as solar will be so cheap by the time the plant is ready to start up it will be instantly mothballed.