The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me.

It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless.

You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad!

> The toxicity of nuclear waste does not even begin to compare with kidney beans. I'm not sure why you're making that analogy, but it's a bit absurd to me.

Canned kidney beans (and other canned foods) are linked with botulism, which is literally one of the most toxic substances to humans. The absurdity of the argument is exactly the point, though. You aren't against canned food (despite botulism killing roughly the same number of people as nuclear accidents in the same timeframe), because it has obvious upsides. The same reasoning should be afforded to other areas too, including nuclear power.

> It's like there's a conscious tactic to compare nuclear power to things people consider harmless.

This is literally my exact tactic, yes. Not to convince you that nuclear is harmless, but to point out that the same criteria should be used. You already consider the aforementioned items harmless, despite their obvious upsides and everyday use and their potentially harmful downsides. The same line of reasoning should be used in both cases.

It's absolutely fine if you say "Kidney beans downsides don't outweigh their upsides, nuclear power's downsides do outweigh its upsides." That's applying the same reasoning to both. However, the logic of "Nuclear power is linked to death, so it is bad" is just as rational as "Canned food is linked to death, so it is bad". Which is, as you say, a bit absurd.

> You're also lecturing me about properly weighing in on upsides and downsides, but you just compared it to salad!

To be totally clear, the point of the analogy is not to convince you that nuclear waste and salad are the same. It is to convince you that the cost-benefit analysis is the same between everyday things like beans and salad, all the way to totally different areas like nuclear power or skydiving or using a computer.

e.g. for salad the risk is very low of death, and the benefits are super high. Salad gets the green light.

Internal-combustion engines allow for a great deal of commerce and personal travel, but they also cause a lot of pollution. Should we ban them, and only let people with EVs or bikes drive? (The same thought process should apply here)

Nuclear power has downsides (nuclear waste), but it also has upsides (Small-footprint, CO2-free energy). I don't care if people weigh those sides and disagree that it's a good option. I care if they look at the downsides and determine that it's bad based solely on those (just as I would in every other decision/policy-making process).

If you could cook the toxicity out of nuclear waste on stovetop, then you'd have a good argument.

Simply because botulism and nuclear accidents kill roughly the same number of people (depending on the time period chosen) does not address the issue of nuclear waste. It's a good way of distracting from it though...

I think we're going around in circles, my only objection is with the line of reasoning that a "connection to death" can be sufficient to reasonably discount something. I'll try to outline my good-faith understanding of where we disagree.

My argument: Support for a choice or policy should be made by one's evaluations of both its upsides and downsides. Something with big downsides could still be okay if its upsides are substantially bigger. It is irrational to make a choice based only on either the upsides or downsides of a choice. This approach should be applicable to all kinds of situations, from boring everyday ones to global policy ones.

My understanding of your argument: Support for a choice or policy can be rational based on only its upside or its downside, so long as its upside or downside is sufficient enough in magnitude. While comparing upsides and downsides might work in some scenarios (e.g. everyday scenarios, foods), it might not work in bigger-scale scenarios, such as the situation of what to do with highly toxic nuclear waste.

If that's where our disagreement does lie, I'm happy to chock it up to a difference in opinion. If I'm misunderstanding your position, that's definitely not my intent.