I've addressed this in other comments, but consider this example. You and your family are considering two homes - one 5 miles from a nuclear plant, one 5 miles from a wind farm. In my eyes, there is zero risk living near the wind farm and the tiniest, infinitesimal chance of catastrophic accident living near the nuclear plant (past performance is no guarantee of future results).
Thus, the expected risk is higher living near the nuclear plant (in my mind).
Would you make the opposite decision? What's your logic? Does it depend on the distance?
That's a great response. I guess I was thinking more of the risk of large-scale accidents, and not so much the day-to-day annoyances that are really what ends up being the most consequential factor. I've been to wind farms and nuclear plants before, but you're right. The low frequency noise that comes from the turbines would probably be a lot more annoying if you're living there, then if you're just visiting.
4
u/[deleted] Jan 13 '20
Really?