Opposition to and heavy regulation of nuclear reactors is mostly about accidents, not weapons (though at least some of the effort into tracking the material is about weapons). Everyone agrees we don’t want accidents, not everyone agrees how much we should give up to prevent 100% of accidents. We have, in fact, had significant accidents.
Also, accidents with weapons are definitely a thing. Human regulation and cooperation is unsolved, so even knowing the difference between accident and intent is actually somewhat hard to define for many group activities.
I agree with this; I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make?
Perhaps you’re suggesting that the fact that its accident risk rather than weapons risk doesn’t mean that we’re safe, in which case I agree. I’m only suggesting that people stop using the analogy to nukes because its misleading, I’m not saying that there’s no risk as a result.
Opposition to and heavy regulation of nuclear reactors is mostly about accidents, not weapons (though at least some of the effort into tracking the material is about weapons). Everyone agrees we don’t want accidents, not everyone agrees how much we should give up to prevent 100% of accidents. We have, in fact, had significant accidents.
Also, accidents with weapons are definitely a thing. Human regulation and cooperation is unsolved, so even knowing the difference between accident and intent is actually somewhat hard to define for many group activities.
I agree with this; I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make?
Perhaps you’re suggesting that the fact that its accident risk rather than weapons risk doesn’t mean that we’re safe, in which case I agree. I’m only suggesting that people stop using the analogy to nukes because its misleading, I’m not saying that there’s no risk as a result.