However, you look at what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima, where thousands of acres are so contaminated with radioactivity that it is not, and will not be safe to live for decades, and maybe longer, and compare that to Three Mile Island, where the only issue, short term or long term, is the reactor building.
Yes, nobody is arguing that Chernobyl was not worse than Three Mile Island.
The reality is that a typical coal plant will release more radiation than a typical nuclear plant.
It's the atypical ones that are the problem. The difference in radiation output between a typical coal fired power plant and one undergoing a catastrophic failure is not that great. The same cannot be said for a nuclear power plant.
Sure, release of any radiation is highly undesirable,
That's my main point, I just wanted to push back against any minimization of "minor" nuclear accidents.
The implication of your claim, which perhaps is not what you meant, is that for an ordinary buyer of Windows, Microsoft could at any time and for any or no reason decide to revoke the license for that copy. Are you making that claim? Because that's very different from a corporate volume license agreement where there's an actual contract that's legitimately negotiated by both parties, and then someone violates the terms of the contract.
It may make for a good movie plot, but the fact of the matter is, nuclear devices, both of the "reactor" and "warhead" variety, are deliberately engineered to make a mushroom cloud showing up by accident virtually impossible.
That statement seems to imply that the only kind of nuclear incident worth worrying about is a mushroom-cloud scale detonation. Seems extremely shortsighted and I hope the Royal Navy doesn't share that view.
Pretty sure you don't normally get charged for the second thing, though.
If the prosecutor is trying to get you to plea bargain, you'll be changed with six different kinds of homicide, trespassing, theft, jaywalking, conspiracy, destruction of property, and anything else they can think of.
Whether or not that's correct would seem - to me - to really come down to the finer points of how "critical infrastructure" is defined.
It's really about "we will find a justification when it's us doing it". Whether that's by finding a useful definition of "critical infrastructure" or by some other means is not really important to them.