Are you aware that the previously-secure nuclear plant in Ukraine is being bombed by Russia even as we speak? How will that play out, do you think? Nuclear plants are only as safe as the humans allow them to be and in this world that isn't much. It is not disingenuous to worry about death with a Putin or Xi or Trump on the planet.
You still have not addressed the problem of nuclear waste. And there is not death until there is. Nevertheless, there are strong arguments for nuclear, but you have not made them.
Speaking both as a lefty and somebody who's done hands-on work involving both radioactive and other hazardous waste streams, I can speak from a 'been there, done that, worn the plastics and masks on a tanker gantry in July' perspective.
Human activity generates waste. A lot of this waste will go on to be hazardous for generations, if not properly disposed of. And for various forms of this waste, 'disposal' entails long-term storage. I've been on work processes that dealt with some decently smoky rad material (not 'kill you if you look at it' material, but 'give you the lethal dose if you spend an hour or so next to it' variety.)
I've also dealt with materials like mercury, for which we... just stick it in cans and let it sit, because mercury is mercury and it's not going to become less dangerous any time soon.
There are hazards for any sort of material generation and chemical processes. There are hazards for every form of power generation, and problematic waste streams associated with those products.
Nuke right now offers the best bang for the buck in terms of energy density and reliability vs. social/ecological cost. And, to be quite honest, there were things I preferred about working with nuke over other chemical hazards. "Lethal dose you in a couple of minutes" level of rad hazards are loud things for the proper equipment. But arsenic just looks like powder, and the way you find out that it's the bad stuff is to gather a sample, send it to a lab, and wait two months for them to get back and say "Oh hey guys don't snort that stuff."
Doubling down on your conspiracy theory doesn't give you more credibility. There has been a huge amount of research on Three Mile Island and the best estimate for number of deaths is zero. I do cancer epidemiology research for a living. There is junk science from the Right and there is junk science from the Left. You are promoting it from the Left.
Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine published an article documenting
тАЬa remarkable and statistically-significant 28% overall increase in infant mortality rates in the coastal strip group relative to the inland control groupтАЭ since Diablo Canyon opened.
The problem is that there are fortunes available for researchers that support industries that harm - tobacco, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers as well as the nuclear industry. Money to research issues like public health and climate change and the harmful effects of big, money-making industries are much more difficult to fund. As a researcher, I would think that this would be well known to you. Cancer research can be different if the research will benefit lucrative industries like big pharma.
Glass vitrification.
The alternatives are fossil fuels which actually kill people, unlike civilian nuclear power plants in the US.
Not in the US. The number of deaths from civilian nuclear power plants in the US is zero.
It is spectacularly disingenuous to compare Soviet nuclear plants to American ones.
Are you aware that the previously-secure nuclear plant in Ukraine is being bombed by Russia even as we speak? How will that play out, do you think? Nuclear plants are only as safe as the humans allow them to be and in this world that isn't much. It is not disingenuous to worry about death with a Putin or Xi or Trump on the planet.
"as far as we have been told"
Yes, the nutty far left is also into conspiracy theories.
You still have not addressed the problem of nuclear waste. And there is not death until there is. Nevertheless, there are strong arguments for nuclear, but you have not made them.
You are the one who posted a conspiracy theory in a comment, not me.
Speaking both as a lefty and somebody who's done hands-on work involving both radioactive and other hazardous waste streams, I can speak from a 'been there, done that, worn the plastics and masks on a tanker gantry in July' perspective.
Human activity generates waste. A lot of this waste will go on to be hazardous for generations, if not properly disposed of. And for various forms of this waste, 'disposal' entails long-term storage. I've been on work processes that dealt with some decently smoky rad material (not 'kill you if you look at it' material, but 'give you the lethal dose if you spend an hour or so next to it' variety.)
I've also dealt with materials like mercury, for which we... just stick it in cans and let it sit, because mercury is mercury and it's not going to become less dangerous any time soon.
There are hazards for any sort of material generation and chemical processes. There are hazards for every form of power generation, and problematic waste streams associated with those products.
Nuke right now offers the best bang for the buck in terms of energy density and reliability vs. social/ecological cost. And, to be quite honest, there were things I preferred about working with nuke over other chemical hazards. "Lethal dose you in a couple of minutes" level of rad hazards are loud things for the proper equipment. But arsenic just looks like powder, and the way you find out that it's the bad stuff is to gather a sample, send it to a lab, and wait two months for them to get back and say "Oh hey guys don't snort that stuff."
Doubling down on your conspiracy theory doesn't give you more credibility. There has been a huge amount of research on Three Mile Island and the best estimate for number of deaths is zero. I do cancer epidemiology research for a living. There is junk science from the Right and there is junk science from the Left. You are promoting it from the Left.
Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine published an article documenting
тАЬa remarkable and statistically-significant 28% overall increase in infant mortality rates in the coastal strip group relative to the inland control groupтАЭ since Diablo Canyon opened.
The problem is that there are fortunes available for researchers that support industries that harm - tobacco, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers as well as the nuclear industry. Money to research issues like public health and climate change and the harmful effects of big, money-making industries are much more difficult to fund. As a researcher, I would think that this would be well known to you. Cancer research can be different if the research will benefit lucrative industries like big pharma.