Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Renewable Energy is The Scam We All Fell For" video.

With 4th generation fission plant design (such as molten salts reactors), that 0.001% chance immediately became 0% as it is psychically impossible for such reactors to melt down(or worse) even in a worse-case-scenario.
1
The Chernobyl exclusion zone have become an unintended wildlife preserve and the flora and faunas there seems to to thrive . As for Fukushima, there is no noticeable increase of radioactivity in the Pacific (which would only decrease over time) . from the disaster so saying the effects are minimal at best. The cost you mentioned isn't to restore nature or for conservation but to make the locations fit for human habitation which isn't exactly a positive thing for nature. Of course both Fukushima and Chernobyl are old reactor design with some very faulty management , with newer design and competent management the chance of similar idaster is almost zero.
1
@primovid FACT CHECK on your so called FACT CHECKS: 1) While there is a sizeable increase in radiation for the sea area directly around Fukushima, THERE IS NO NOTICEABLE INCREASE OF RADIATION ON THE PACIFIC AT ALL, in fact the increase in overall radiation in the Pacific in within the normal everyday background range prior to the disaster. In fact the worst recorded increase of radiation in the Pacific was found is several fish species(Tuna etc) that was caught and the highest amount detected was less than 1/20 of the dose you'll get from eating a single banana. 2) No adverse effect have been observed in the large vertebrate (they were quite a few visible changes in the inveterate samples , but none of them were negatively affacted as well) population found in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. While DNA sampling of them do reveal that many of them have some changes in their DNA, none seem to affect them in in adverse ways . So yes, saying that they are thriving is quite accurate. 3)And yest the spread of disaster have been pretty much contained to the point that the ares directly surroundings the exclusion zone is now safe for rehabilitation. People have been harping on and on about the "160 tons of water escaping into the pacific" while keep on forgetting two very important thing: 1) How much of radioactive material that ere really was in those 160 ton of water and 2) the volume of water in the Pacific ocean. Because of those two factor the radioactive material found in the water would have bee so diluted among the water column that you can hardly find d a single molecule of radioactive matter (caesium eg) in a cubic meter of water. 4) Hence the exclusion zone. 5) Nice strawman you used there . Too bad using strawman pretty much invalidate your entire point.. I never said the monetary cost of of nuclear disaster was insignificant. I said the cost of the disaster to the environment (as opposed to humans) was overblown (as shown by the thriving wildlife in both Fukushima and Chernobyl) . 6) Do you know what happened to old reactors? They eventfully got retired and got replace by better , safer new ones. (if newer reactor got built that is). It is possible to plan enough for for disaster like this to the point that severe damage can be avoided . Don't tend to forget that the Onagawa reactor (which was the same generation Fukushima) survived the exact earthquake and tsunami as Fukushima without any incident thus proving you can built older design reactors safe enough in in very geologically active regions.Newer design (generation 3 or higher) are much safer. As for terrorist strike? there have been no successful terrorist strike on any nuclear reactors and even if a terrorist or rebel faction managed to take over a reactor plant (which have happened before) it extremely unlikely that they would have the exact technical knowledge to trigger the exact type of failure sequence that would trigger a meltdown. At worst they would damaged the reactor beyond repair. As for the reactors surviving plan crash: western reactors weer built with this risk in mind. You should check the footage of American test where they crash F-4 Phantom jets directly into the reactor containment structure (the thing that sheath every individual reactor) without breaching the containment units (or touching the reactor inside) so yes, they are built to survive such attacks. It would take a dedicated resource of a well funded military to actually destroys such reactors.
1