Hi - I am the author of the article - thanks for your comment. It's true that there is a lot more data in terms of life insurance and mortality tables. However, it's not just one expert's view that the risk of a nuclear incident is meaningfully higher than the 0.5% annual mortality figures I cited. It appears to be more of a consensus. Also, looking at the cumulative probabilities over 10 - 20 years would lead me to the same conclusion - that the cumulative chances of a nuclear incident are high relative to the cumulative chance of any individual 35 year-old dying over that timeframe. Whether the chances are twice as much or half as much wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make, though - that the financial community should be taking some risk-reduction measures in terms of both lobbying and building in emergency shock absorbers into the structure of markets.