I take some reassurance that the anti-nuclear guys say we're fucked and pro-nuclear guys say nuclear is still the safest. That means the truth is probably somewhere in the middle ;-)
Sorry if I downvoted sarcasm. Unless you meant "middle" literally as in anything exactly as written by the most extreme of either side, this is a bad way to reason about things.
It's the kind of thinking that lets people say "well the anti-vaccine people are pretty strong about their views, but doctors disagree; it's probably somewhere in the middle" and slide about while being incorrect.
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam; also known as [argument from] middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. This fallacy's opposite is the false dilemma.
Well contrary to what anti-nuclear supporters say, we know from a fact that in terms of death ratio per MWatts produced, Nuclear energy is certainly one of the safest ways to produce energy out there. It's not because there is one bad recent incident that it puts a sudden question mark on the whole technology.
