Reply #10: Why put it aside?

[FBaggins]

It was obviously intended to be a pro-nuke argument... and it was in no way "lame".

Natural gas/coal/oil-fired electricity generation is not without risks. The "lame" argument is the fanciful notion that ALL of the nation's power needs can be supplied with wind/solar/hydro. Since there will be large amounts of power generation by fossil/nuclear plants, it's entirely "valid" to point out that the dangers that some see in nuclear power (from radiation and "accidents" of one form or another) should be compared to the dangers involved in the other alternatives.

There articles aren't "compared" to each other... they're compared together to nuclear safety concerns to show how "lame" arguments that rely on them are.