Burden of proof is on you buddy.

If you can’t think of anything different about Maine power compared to other New England states, keep your sweeping generalizations to yourself.

Must be convenient to just invent your own facts.

Good day to you.

The original argument here was that you try to justify your claim that nuclear generation is ideal by saying that nuclear accidents don’t happen. That’s false. You won’t convince anybody who doesn’t already share your view by making claims that can be so easily verified as false. Then when you’re presented with a fairly long and comprehensive list of accidents, you say they’re not accidents. Well, according to the scientific community they are accidents. I don’t think your determination carries more weight. In short, people don’t want nuclear power because of the risk, however remote the possibility of a serious accident might be. You won’t be convincing anybody otherwise.

“Risk free” Let’s be sure to consult Super-Lychee8852 on the risks to nuclear power generation here. This guys knows what’s up.

Try reading boy

No u!

Sure, let’s get a nuclear plant going in Florida. We never have weather events here. You are willfully ignoring so much evidence contrary to your views, it’s kind of sad.

You are so dense, there’s no point in engaging in civil debate.

A screening program a year later in 2012 found that more than a third (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands.[215] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole.

No problem there right? So what if kids get cancer! It’s totally safe! That could never happen here! Certainly not in a country where even the government tried to cover up the polluted water in Flint, Michigan.

Find me one instance if people getting killed by a horrific wind and solar accident that made the surrounding area uninhabitable. Rhetorically, since you’re a fucking idiot and that doesn’t exist. Or maybe wind and solar bombs? No referring to comic books though.

You’re forgetting how incompetent and corrupt Americans are. You sound like Donald Trump promoting coal. It’s not safe, it requires extremely rare and dangerous materials to produce. If society collapses the plants become an immediate problem. It has been a problem in Ukraine for about a year now. Compare that to wind and solar arrays which pose no risk to humanity and the environment. Good thing you have absolutely no decision making power on this.

I’m not sure why you would argue with people online when you have nothing to back up your claims.

That doesn’t answer the question. Are you a statistician and nuclear physicist and engineer? How else could you be so sure about that?

So, supposing that’s true, do you believe that it’s outside the realm of possibility that such an event would cause substantial harm to the environment or people?

Right because if they were nuclear accidents, that would make you wrong. So forget the fact that they were nuclear accidents. Forget about three mile island. In the interest of you being correct, it’s clear that the facts don’t matter.

I’m not surprised that evidence that refutes your claim(nuclear accidents couldn’t happen here) isn’t enough to convince you. You will just keep screaming into the void like a cultist.

You are a dipshit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States

There is a "catastrophic risk" potential if containment fails,[2] which in nuclear reactors can be brought about by overheated fuels melting and releasing large quantities of fission products into the environment. The most long-lived radioactive wastes, including spent nuclear fuel, must be contained and isolated for a long period of time. However, spent nuclear fuel can sometimes be reused, reducing the amount of waste. Emission of radioactivity from a nuclear plant is controlled by regulations. Abnormal operation may result in release of radioactive material on scales ranging from minor to severe, although these scenarios are very rare.[3] In normal operation, nuclear power plants release less radioactive material than coal power plants whose fly ash contains significant amounts of thorium, uranium and their daughter nuclides.[4]

A large nuclear power plant may reject waste heat to a natural body of water; this can result in undesirable increase of the water temperature with adverse effect on aquatic life. Alternatives include cooling towers.[5] As most commercial nuclear power plants are incapable of online refueling and need periodic shutdowns to exchange spent fuel elements for fresh fuel, many operators schedule this unavoidable downtime for the peak of summer when rivers tend to run lower and the issue of waste heat potentially harming the fluvial environment is most acute.[6] This is especially pronounced in France, which produces some 70% of electricity with nuclear power plants and where electric home heating is widespread. However, in regions with high heating, ventilation, and air conditioning power use, the summer season, rather than imposing lower power demands, may be the peak season of electricity demand, complicating scheduled summer shutdowns

The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant – a plant that cools by direct use of ocean water, not requiring a cooling tower Mining of uranium ore can disrupt the environment around the mine. However with modern in-situ leaching technology this impact can be reduced compared to "classical" underground or open-pit mining. Disposal of spent nuclear fuel is controversial, with many proposed long-term storage schemes under intense review and criticism. Nuclear reprocessing and breeder reactors which can decrease the need for storage of spent fuel in a deep geological repository have faced economic and political hurdles but are in some use in Russia, India, China, Japan and France, which are among the countries with the highest nuclear energy production outside the United States. However, the U.S. has not undertaken significant efforts towards either reprocessing or breeder reactors since the 1970s instead relying on the once through fuel cycle. Diversion of fresh- or low-burnup spent fuel to weapons production presents a risk of nuclear proliferation, however all nuclear weapons states derived the material for their first nuclear weapon from (non-power) research reactors or dedicated "production reactors" and/or uranium enrichment. Finally, some parts the structure of the reactor itself becomes radioactive through neutron activation and will require decades of storage before it can be economically dismantled and in turn disposed of as waste. Measures like reducing the cobalt content in steel to decrease the amount of cobalt-60 produced by neutron capture can reduce the amount of radioactive material produced and the radiotoxicity that originates from this material.[7] However, part of the issue is not radiological but regulatory as most countries assume any given object that originates from the "hot" (radioactive) area of a nuclear power plant or a facility in the nuclear fuel cycle is ipso facto radioactive, even if no contamination or neutron irradiation induced radioactivity is detectable.

The spent nuclear fuel from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 nuclear fission contains a wide variety of carcinogenic radionuclide isotopes such as strontium-90, iodine-131, and caesium-137.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

What makes you think that industry can be trusted to handle nuclear waste safely when it has demonstrated without fail that it will choose the cheapest option and hide the potential harm resulting from shortcuts and failures?

Seriously. That would be like a pandemic happening here, or an insurrection. That only happens in the third world.

Go ahead and start up a plant man. We’re waiting!