On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:48:07 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:08:51 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Nukes in fact put far less radiation into the
atmosphere than coal fired power stations.

But what about the spent fuel that cannot be disposed of without a 300 year
sealed container?

What about it?

That's what causes the most harm (note I'm not saying Nuclear power is bad, it's cleaner than others).

What about the cost of rebuilding everything?

Rebuilding what? As it happens, the Fukushima plant was due to be
closed within 6 months of the incident anyway - end of life.

And no damage was caused by the reactors. All the damage was from the
tsunami, which caused some 25,000 deaths. Perhaps you should be
concerned about that.

What about the damage to wildlife?

What damage to wildlife?

Radiation will do that.

It didn't with Chernobyl or 3 mile island or Fukushima.

It's claimed sheep in Scotland were affected by Chernobyl.

What d'ye mean by "affected"? And claimed by whom?

I dunno, it was decades ago. Possibly some absurd food safety standards group telling the farmers to burn all the sheep instead of eating them or something.

And, for your information, you should look up "deaths from ordinary
industrial accidents", you'll find the numbers to be much larger.

Only if you take the numbers too literally like you do.

Why shouldn't I take them literally?

Because you're not taking into account other significant problems.

There are no other significant problems.

Cancer is a damn big problem.

Nothing new there, then.

It's one thing having cancer caused by cigarettes. You can choose not to smoke. But you can't choose not to pick up **** from nuclear power stations.