Its a matter of degrees XO, A speculator holding a developer ransom and a farm in the family for four hundred years just aren't comparable in my view.
I agreed with you on that.. But the point is that there is a line.. Where the line sit in term of when public good overriding individual right is determined by culture, local laws, economic condition and political climiate. I grew up in an Asian city that were poor and become rich.. And there is not a lot of individual rights.. the lens we used in US here is very different than the one use over there.
Risk of permanent destruction vs. sustainable use, not comparable
I don't know if you watch some of the mad max type of movie..Those movie protrait a land with very limited energy option. In those circumstance I would think having a nuclear plant is a no brainer option since the alternative is so poor.. Again my point is that it depend on the alternative.. Given Japan situation, what is their alternative? Can they rebuild another set of NG/wind power/solar power energy plant to replace their nuclear power plant that they loss? Should they shut down all their nulcear plant fleet and replace with what? If the alternative is a permanent blackout in some place and people go hungry, it won't fly.. However, if the alternative is doable, it will certainly make sense. Economic has everything to do with whether nucluear power plant make any sense at all. Becuase the alternative is people go hungry or die so it can be as bad as a nuclear accidents.