Excited to see everyone today. Re-reading through the links, I think they might be a bit too pro-nuclear. I'm going to recommend a reading from the last meetup, Safe Enough which argues we're thinking about nuclear risks incorrectly. A key excerpt:

Still. The advocates who intone solemnly on the importance of analyzing nuclear energy in terms of dispassionate numbers, as above, use the wrong models. To estimate the potential impact of cascades, we cannot simply average what has been. Our models have to consider the total damage possible - the number of rice grains in our pile, the energy of the atoms in our nuclear fuel.

[...]

To take Probabilistic Risk Assessment seriously requires that we think beyond intuition and experience, and place our faith in an intricate web of calculations and simulations. That we celebrate meticulousness over freedom and invention. That we recognize that while our vigilance will protect us from some catastrophes, it will never shield us entirely.

I'm confused about what a worst-case for nuclear power looks like, because I don't understand what it would mean to direct the maximum amount of radiation from a nuclear power plant to the most populous areas. The talk from Michael Shellenberger made it seem like living near Chernobyl isn't that bad? Looking forward to discussing!