>>>>>One of my favorite books....
>>>>>https://www.amazon.com/Health-Hazards-Not-Going-Nuclear/dp/0911762175/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+health+hazards+of+not+going+nuclear&qid=1597752356&sr=8-1
>>>
>>>Nuclear energy echoes Longfellow's nursery rhyme: when it's good it's very very good, but when it's bad, it's horrid.
>>
>>Except that it's not true. Nuclear energy is probably the safest energy source ... but not without challenges. But no energy source is without challenges.
>
>2 japanese cities might not vote that way...

>For commercial energy generation Fusion might be(come) the safest energy source.

Yes, fusion will be even safer. But fission right now is probably the safest energy source as measured by cost to human life and environment but not, as said, without challenges. No energy source is without its challenges.

>Solar and wind are not that often killing people or reduce life spans a lot.

You need to investigate the full-life cycle of an energy technology. For example, investigate where the rare earth materials needed in wind turbines comes from and the impact the mining of them has on the environment and thus on people. And then the life-span of the turbines and the environmental impact on decommissioning them. Also need to compare energy cost, availability, and reliability when comparing energy sources.

>Fission is often safer during the human life span compared to bringing up coal or other stuff...

Agree but even modern coal energy power plants can become very clean and could become even cleaner given a commercial motivation to do so. For example, a modern day coal power plant is orders or magnitude cleaner than 100 years ago. One must do a full-life cycle comparison of an energy source and do a cost/benefit analysis of different energy sources.