Instead of putting the brakes on nuclear plants, should we be building safer ones?

Instead of putting the brakes on nuclear plants, should we be building safer ones? | Grist

An interesting counterpoint to the knee-jerk anti-nuclear argument. I admit that radiation and nuclear plants freak me out in a way that's somewhat of an irrational fear, but I just really hate the idea of an area that's contaminated for SO long.

Mainly I like that a good design goes a long way towards solving major problems, like almost everything else in the world.

Also, as the XKCD radiation dose chart shows, you get more radioactive exposure next to a coal plant than a nuclear plant (in a non-emergency situation obviously). Coal plants have higher on-average health risks than nuclear plants, it's just worse during the rare times when everything goes horribly wrong.

Kind of like how I'd rather live in an area at risk of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes but they don't happen very often, rather than in a place like Kansas where I'm at a more common risk of tornadoes and living in Kansas.