Power generation is inherently dangerous, but nuclear is clearly one of the safest ways to do it

Oh, ffs. I don't actually care much, but bad math is offensive.

Airlines have almost as good a safety record per operating hour as do nuclear plants. The difference is that bad plane crashes don't render large areas uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Let's say that you get a level seven accident every twenty-five years. (2011-1986 = 25) That means that, on average, there should be about 800 of them by the time that the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is safe for human habitation. How many square kilometers will be uninhabitable at that time?

A low accident rate is not a zero accident rate and never will be. We as a culture may not care that significant accidents are inevitable--I certainly do not--but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that more Chernobyls and Fukushimas will not happen. They will. They may be rare, they may be frequent, but they will happen again because no human engineering project will ever have a rate of zero. This is an iron-clad rule graven into the fabric of the universe by the hand of god. It cannot be argued.

I'm not saying "no nukes!"--I used to work at a nuclear plant--but you need to stop talking like a Simpsons character.

The actual question is "at what point do the unavoidable risks of nuclear power outweigh the undeniable benefits?" I don't know the answer and I do not care at all.

Good luck with your career.