> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster and mentioned that Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone, including Tokyo, and would have to evacuate.

Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value?

The scientific report I linked to comes from the independent committee in charge of the investigation. If you want to assert something, you should start there.

I understand you may not have a completely scientific background, but what people say does not necessarily represent reality or have intrinsic worth. Talking about science is not the same as conducting science.

Regarding your comment, the article you mentioned seems inaccurate.

The original sources of the interviews are these:

- https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/

- https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-consider...

There is no mention of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Rather, it seems that idea came from Yukio Edano:
"The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a 'demonic chain reaction' of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south."

In contrast, the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission:
"The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones."

This completely contradicts what you stated, proving that interviews or people's words should not be taken as truth without evidence.

Apart from this way of clinging to quotes based on nothing. Evacuation remains a political issue, and not a nuclear one.

> The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in the vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident cannot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may cause huge damage.

A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death.

If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is?

> Nope. I argue that a dam is more robust and gives numerous early signs of failure, whereas a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context.

Below I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures.

> Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained from accidents useless?

It's not useless, but often exaggerated and unscientific. The public and politicians fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion.

The fear-to-real-danger ratio is much more exaggerated for nuclear technology than for any other modern technology. This inability to relate to other technologies has led to this misunderstanding.

Page 171 Chapter 3.5:

- https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1...

- https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1....

As the figure shows, fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources. This is simply statistics and the reality of the facts.

"An accident at a Generation III nuclear power plant with the consequences shown in Figure 3.5-1 is a highly improbable event. The calculated frequency of such consequences corresponds to about 10^(-10) per reactor year, or once in ten billion years of operation per reactor. However, such a number of fatalities, even if based on very pessimistic assumptions, impacts public perception due to disaster (or risk) aversion."

- https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk...

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/

> The evolution of the production cost of various types of sources is clear: [https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri...

No, it's not clear at all.

1. This graph shows that hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables).

2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies, where renewables fail miserably.

3. It ignores grid costs, overproduction costs, and backup costs, all necessary for renewable energy.

4. Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest.

Page 9 note 1:

- https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

- https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Syst...

- https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ve...

> This is not intrinsic; many nations (even in Western Europe) have built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so.

Having the equipment means nothing without the entire production chain, investments, know-how, and affordable labor.

In fact, in the Chip industry, where this problem is much more real, and where Europeans build the equipment, however, in the event of a TMSC shutdown due to an invasion, it would be a disaster either way, with repercussions for decades.

If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification?

China controls the rare earths, cheap labor, and production chain. Changing these factors would exponentially increase costs, making solar panels safe but uneconomic. Not to mention the time it takes to make the transition.

I support adoption, research, and development, but producing panels economically to decarbonize by 2050 is impossible in that scenario.

- https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China

- https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/...

- https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzger...

> In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market.

False.

"Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...

Besides, nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&us...

The availability and quantity of uranium are not valid arguments.