But let's turn to your comment.
I would like to submit a challenge, which is to show that nuclear power plants built in the 1970's in the US have killed as many people as space craft have, or for that matter, aircraft failures, or automotive engineering failures.
The United States has led the entire world in nuclear power production for more than four decades, with reactors built on engineering and materials and construction largely carried out in the 1970s.
These plants were built by American contractors using Union Labor.
The North Anna Nuclear Power Plants were just approved to operate for another two decades, extending their lives to 80 years.
NRC approves 20-year extension for North Anna 1 and 2
Every single glitch, minor or otherwise, at a nuclear power plant generates nearly hysterical coverage from our "but her emails" media, but for all the carrying on, the death toll is essentially nonexistent. However all of this "reporting" is ripe with "if" and "could" statements.
When a house blows up because of a dangerous natural gas leak - even in events that kill people - it hardly gets as much coverage as a minor fault at a nuclear powerplant is sure to get almost every time.
Nuclear power plants do not need to be risk free to be vastly superior to everything else. They do not need to be harmless to be less harmful than their alternatives. Specifically, it is not true that a death from radiation exposure from a leak at a nuclear power plant is more important than the 7 million deaths that take place each year from the normal operations of combustion based facilities. That is an immoral calculus in my view.
My view of nuclear power changed from that of a rote opponent - and frankly an unthinking and ignorant opponent - to that of an adherent, when the Chernobyl reactor exploded, answering, for all time, what the worst case is. It took some time and some critical thinking about that event, but within three years, by 1990 I had become a supporter of nuclear energy and remain one today.
I note that the country where Chernobyl is located, the one being attacked by fossil fuel powered weapons of mass destruction using funding provided by antinuclear Germans who sent oodles of money to Putin for gas, oil and coal, Ukraine, is planning to embrace nuclear power when the invaders are defeated:
Energoatom moves ahead with plans for new four-unit AP1000 plant
Given that the status quo has left the planet in flames, the worst case, Chernobyl, for nuclear power is of far less import than the best case for the status quo, the status quo being fossil fuels and lipstick on the fossil fuel pig, things like so called "renewable energy" and even worse, absurd energy storage schemes, also lipstick on the fossil fuel pig, batteries, hydrogen, CAES, blah, blah, blah. The status quo case is a planet in flames, vast ecosystems dying, extreme weather destroying towns, cities, and with them human lives. How do the bogeymen at Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI compare?
Nuclear power plants save lives: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
The Union workers who built our plants in the 1970s did a hell of a good job; they left a tremendous gift for future generations, including the one of which I am a member. We owe it to the future to do the same.
= new reply since forum marked as read