Could you perhaps be a little more explicit as to why nuclear energy is excluded from the green new deal? Saying that 'the left' is split in their support for nuclear does not indicate why it is excluded. Citing quotes by those supporting the 'new green deal' would greatly bolster the answer.

I would point out that while Calabrese is a capable researcher, it would be misleading to suggest that his work represents the only research done on radiation hormesis. That snippet might lead people to believe that radiation hormesis is an open-and-shut case, founded only on those erroneous studies from the 40s, when in reality there's been a great deal of more recent research, only some of it supporting the radiation hormesis hypothesis.

You are wrong to equate the environmental movement with "the left".There are many leftist who don't care about the environment, and at least one avowed treehugger (me :-)) who's emphatically not a leftist.

@jamesqf While there is nothing preventing conservative green movements, the fact is that there have been none relevant to date. You can hug as many trees as you like, but the parties you vote for aren't pro-environment - even if some of their politicians are.

@jamesqf, point taken... sorry!

@Rekesoft So true. Your beliefs don't really matter. Who you vote for does.

@Rekesoft: While there's a degree of truth to that, the flip side is that supposed environmental parties use environmentalism as a shield to hide a leftist core. For example, the Green Party is often called the Watermelon Party - green out the outside, red on the inside.

@jamesqf quora.com/…

@CramerTV, I would do that if I knew. I'm afraid I don't!

@Obie2.0, I would not have brought up radiation hormesis and I don't think it's particularly relevant to questions of the safety of nuclear power.

"the left" is one of those weasel words that means everyone you hate, and also gives you a reason to hate people even though they haven't actually done anything you hate yet. Generally when someone says "the left" (and "the right" for that matter) it can be replaced by "evil people" and the sentiment remains the same.

@immibis, note that it doesn't anymore appear in this answer. For what it's worth, I don't hate people who disagree with me politically.

@Rekesoft I think you're confusing being pro-environment with wanting government intervention for environmental concerns.

@jpmc26 You can't have one without the other. Pro-environment policies are, well, policies, and as such a matter of politics and govenrments. Those who think that the free market can self-regulate in any aspect, despite all historical evidences against it, are like those who think communism can work. In both cases they argue it has not been done well yet instead of admitting the core ideology it's deeply flawed from the core.

@Rekesoft Even if I grant that there are cases where government intervention is the best or only solution to a particular problem, environmentalism has become one of the major means by which the American economy has effectively become a planned economy rather than anything resembling a free market, and yet still we are told that the problems are pervasive and dire and that yet more control is required. (And no, I am not referring solely to carbon emissions.) Something is wrong here. Either the government is ill suited to actually solve these problems or environmentalists are overzealous.

"the Fukushima meltdown, where 18,000 deaths were due to the earthquake and tsunami, none to radiation exposure, and none are expected from radiation exposure" Not anti-nuclear, but this is a disingenuous. It has not been ruled out that earlier-than-otherwise deaths will happen down the road. Models conflict, some predict 0 such deaths, some predict none 0. It's just that no one died yet.

@Alexander, certainly? How do you know?

@elliotsvensson I misspoke, it's not certain, but there numerous analyses that concluded that predict a non-zero number of earlier-than-otherwise deaths. Though such an event is probably normally distributed, and has a small chance of happening to "land" at zero, even if the distribution is predominantly on the positive side.

I think @Alexander is talking about increased rates of cancer deaths and other effects that might take a long time to manifest.

People are idiots, +1. But it's a circular problem (and I wouldn't have given you the green check mark) because, some of those idiots want to hurt other people. If that wasn't a concern, I doubt all the other reasons would stop us. They sure as well ain't stopping other countries. So we got that going for us; let's just keep shooting ourselves in the foot I guess. Honestly it's a moot point because were never going to stop burning coal anyway; the RoI is too good.

@jpmc26 - A planned economy, really? Without even nationalized railroads? Or healthcare? Or education? With only about 20% of the GDP being government spending of any type?

@Obie2.0 Yeah, really, because there's very few decisions businesses can make that the government doesn't restrict in some way. Owning the means of production is not the only way in which a government can control an economy.

To be honest, while I am very skeptical of the decision making by Green proponents, I am also very much less than impressed by this answer which basically claims that any and all problems with nuclear energy have been invented and are not real concerns at all. It is not, in the least, balanced. To take Fukushima, yes, deaths are likely to be low. But Japan is a densely populated country and could ill afford to lose land. And the advent of Fukushima - in a location historically known for 7m+ tsunamis - is a glaring indictment of the Japanese nuclear industry's casual approach to safety.

@jpmc26 Actually every business decision is restricted in some way. If I want to buy a new factory for example, I can bid on it, or I can shoot the existing owners and take over by force. But that gosh darned stupid government is restricting my opportunity to exercise the latter option :)

@immibis You know what I mean. I am not talking about restricting violence. I'm talking about making decisions about how to manage your own property. I specifically know of a local storage lot that can't build a few extra units out back because of some creek. So can we skip the snide, useless remarks?

@jpmc26 When you say that every business decision is restricted, but don't say how, it is very hard to take you seriously. Of course every decision has to be restricted, to restrict murder for example. That's a no-brainer. You have to say why you believe the restrictions are not valid.

@jpmc26 How do you define "planned economy"? Is it any economy where business doesn't have 100% freedom? If this is the case, the murder example makes any economy a "planned economy." If you have a different definition, please share, as I don't think a few environmental restrictions can reasonably be called a planned economy.

@jpmc26 Not that dictionary.com defines "planned economy" as "an economic system in which the government controls and regulates production, distribution, prices, etc." That clearly isn't happening here, so if we go by a real definition, you are simply wrong.

@Patrick I'm referring to the fact that virtually any time you break ground, you must obtain permits and have environmental analysis done. It's not just restrictions. It's the fact that the government must approve everything ahead of time. As for the strict definition, I think the various levels of US government are far more involved in all those things than you realize.

@jpmc26 Placing some restrictions on something is not the same as controlling or planning it. For example, violence is not allowed at a protest, but we'd never say that the government planned the protest. Yes, the government is involved in some ways, like protecting the people from dangerous decisions, but they aren't planning the economy.