<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>joshjob42</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve ran the numbers and based on the actual run experience of the RBMK it will end it&amp;#x27;s life as a reactor design having killed less than half as many people per TWh as American coal did in recent years using the 4000 expected dead number estimate from the WHO and EPA numbers for coal. There were some upgrades to the RBMK post Chernobyl but fundamentally simple operational changes would&amp;#x27;ve prevented any further catastrophes.&lt;p&gt;If the worst designed reactor of all time and the only one subject to the only accident in nuclear history to kill a large number of people is significantly safer per unit electricity than coal, it&amp;#x27;s not crazy to say that all the plants that are radically safer than said reactor design probably are spending too much on safety.</text><parent_chain><item><author>coldtea</author><text>LOL. He laments how billions are spent for nuclear reactor safety and then uses the casualty numbers based on those billions being spent [1], to calculate the casualty impact of building nuclear factories with more abandon and without such spending (as if the numbers would be the same).&lt;p&gt;Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be &amp;quot;no worse&amp;quot; that previous ones. Because, you know, that&amp;#x27;s a given or something.&lt;p&gt;Not to mention that even the numbers he uses for casualties from prior accidents and later cancers are doctored by governments who had accidents on their watch trying to look good, and by research funded and astroturfed by the nuclear industry to make itself look better.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nuclear power is too safe</title><url>https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-too-safe</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rocqua</author><text>No, he uses numbers from an old regime of rules. Argues those were incredibly safe, and hence the newer stricter rules are unnecessary.</text><parent_chain><item><author>coldtea</author><text>LOL. He laments how billions are spent for nuclear reactor safety and then uses the casualty numbers based on those billions being spent [1], to calculate the casualty impact of building nuclear factories with more abandon and without such spending (as if the numbers would be the same).&lt;p&gt;Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be &amp;quot;no worse&amp;quot; that previous ones. Because, you know, that&amp;#x27;s a given or something.&lt;p&gt;Not to mention that even the numbers he uses for casualties from prior accidents and later cancers are doctored by governments who had accidents on their watch trying to look good, and by research funded and astroturfed by the nuclear industry to make itself look better.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nuclear power is too safe</title><url>https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-too-safe</url></story>