@wildgrass said
Again, you are implying that the negative impacts of the worst nuclear disaster in history is worse than other energy sources. This is a fallacy. It is not accurate to compare a single worst case scenario to what is happening on a daily basis from other energy-producing industries.

Radioactivity is everywhere, the concern has always been about the dose. Releasing it slow ...[text shortened]... oi/pdf/10.1021/es402165b
https://www.fractracker.org/2017/03/oil-gas-wastes-radioactive-regulation/

Don't forget radon gas. Just because there are other sources of radioactivity does not excuse dumping it into the ocean. You are supposed to care about the environment and you are condoning nuclear dumping into the ocean.

Do you think the same way about BP dumping mercury into lake Michigan?

https://www.wqpmag.com/bp-allowed-continue-dumping-mercury-lake-michigan

After all, there is Mercury in all sorts of food we eat. It is all about dosage, right? Do you condone the dumping of Mercury in the Great Lakes? I live in Michigan just so you know.

@metal-brain said
Don't forget radon gas. Just because there are other sources of radioactivity does not excuse dumping it into the ocean. You are supposed to care about the environment and you are condoning nuclear dumping into the ocean.

Do you think the same way about BP dumping mercury into lake Michigan?

https://www.wqpmag.com/bp-allowed-continue-dumping-mercury-lake-michigan
...[text shortened]... ight? Do you condone the dumping of Mercury in the Great Lakes? I live in Michigan just so you know.

Yes it is all about dosage. What's a healthy amount? Pure water is good, but drinking 6 liters will kill you.

As long as we are fracking and drilling oil and burning coal, I will support nuclear. It is far better for the environment than those alternatives. I have outlined many other concerns with wind and solar. They are not nearly as green or sustainable as people assume, and nuclear is still better for the environment.

Of course in your mercury example we are not comparing it to anything. Of course I don't support it if there are better options. Are there better options?

@metal-brain said
Don't forget radon gas. Just because there are other sources of radioactivity does not excuse dumping it into the ocean. You are supposed to care about the environment and you are condoning nuclear dumping into the ocean.

Do you think the same way about BP dumping mercury into lake Michigan?

https://www.wqpmag.com/bp-allowed-continue-dumping-mercury-lake-michigan
...[text shortened]... ight? Do you condone the dumping of Mercury in the Great Lakes? I live in Michigan just so you know.

I agree that BP ought not to be allowed to dump mercury in Lake Michigan. A chemical company in Japan was allowed to do this and it caused a calamity when the mercury was bonded with methane by a micro-organism which made it biologically active. There's a video on YouTube here [1] and the Wikipedia article is here [2]. BP ought not to be allowed to cut costs by dumping a dangerous substance. Mercury is also a useful metal and really ought to be reprocessed for other uses.

The release of radio-active water may be a necessity. Unlike BP's mercury, storing and reprocessing it is immediately hazardous and dilution in the ocean may be the lesser evil. I think it is tolerable that the procedure one adopts after a disaster is different to the one used in normal operations.

[1] YouTube
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

@wildgrass said
Yes it is all about dosage. What's a healthy amount? Pure water is good, but drinking 6 liters will kill you.

As long as we are fracking and drilling oil and burning coal, I will support nuclear. It is far better for the environment than those alternatives. I have outlined many other concerns with wind and solar. They are not nearly as green or sustainable as people assu ...[text shortened]... it to anything. Of course I don't support it if there are better options. Are there better options?

You don't seem to get it. These problems are a reality because of building nuclear power plants. Had they not been built it would not have happened.

I understand people have a tendency to defend a position when taken, but you are taking it a bit to the extreme. Here you are trying to protect the environment by endangering it.

Radioactivity is dangerous to the environment. France has not had a major nuclear power accident like Japan has, but they still had accidents. I saw some of it on the Wikipedia page and came to the realization that people will screw up no matter how well built a nuclear reactor is to be safe. You should look at it too. Expanding nuclear is not a good alternative. It is not safe. We have just been lucky so far that it has not been worse.

@metal-brain said
You don't seem to get it. These problems are a reality because of building nuclear power plants. Had they not been built it would not have happened.

I understand people have a tendency to defend a position when taken, but you are taking it a bit to the extreme. Here you are trying to protect the environment by endangering it.

Radioactivity is dangerous to the enviro ...[text shortened]... s not a good alternative. It is not safe. We have just been lucky so far that it has not been worse.

I have looked into it. Radioactive release is not specific to nuclear power. It is worse in other power-producing industries (especially fracking and oil).

@wildgrass said
I have looked into it. Radioactive release is not specific to nuclear power. It is worse in other power-producing industries (especially fracking and oil).

What is your source of info?

@metal-brain said
What is your source of info?

Another case of your intellectual laziness, it took almost one minute to find this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180918154831.htm

@sonhouse said
Another case of your intellectual laziness, it took almost one minute to find this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180918154831.htm

I was already aware of that. This is no surprise. Here in Northern Lower Michigan we have plenty of oil and gas wells and even pipe pulled from the ground has some radioactivity and they sometimes just lay it on the ground. I was told they test it before they do that or at least they are supposed to, but I'm sure there is some neglect and some people use old pipes like that to weld stuff.

It doesn't mean that water is more radioactive than nuclear and they reuse that water as much as they can. You don't have much of a point. Your intellectual laziness.

@metal-brain said

It doesn't mean that water is more radioactive than nuclear

Correct, that alone doesn't mean that. But, if only you bothered to take one minute to check, it clearly IS more radioactive than nuclear anyway;

http://www.nofrackingway.us/2014/05/04/fracking-produces-more-radioactive-waste-than-nuclear-power-plants/
"...Fracking puts more hazardous radioactive material into the environment than all the US nuclear power plants combined. About a Fukushima worth a month. Another Chernobyl every six months. Three Mile Island ? Fracking child’s play: one truckload of processed frack sludge has more radioactive material in it than all the leakage at Three Mile Island.
The US nuclear industry produces about 2,000 tons of hazardous waste a year that has to be stored in a secure location. A frack truck can haul about 22 tons of processed sludge – that requires storage in a hazardous radioactive waste facility. So a convoy 100 frack trucks carries the equivalent volume of a year’s supply of nuclear industry waste...."

Also, this issue isn't just confined to fracking but fossil fuels in general.
For example;

http://cleanenergyaction.org/2010/12/16/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
"...
Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

Coal ash, the waste produced by coal plants, is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the coal ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal’s content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or “whole,” coal that they aren’t a problem. But when coal is burned into coal ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels...."

In fact, vastly more deaths (from all causes. Not just radioactivity related) have been estimated to occur from fossil fuel use than nuclear and even in terms of deaths per unit power generated (I have already shown you a link showing that. here is is yet again; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents).

P.S. I personally am not a fan of nuclear in particular but, facts are facts.

@humy said
Correct, that alone doesn't mean that. But, if only you bothered to take one minute to check, it clearly IS more radioactive than nuclear anyway;

http://www.nofrackingway.us/2014/05/04/fracking-produces-more-radioactive-waste-than-nuclear-power-plants/
"...Fracking puts more hazardous radioactive material into the environment than all the US nuclear power plants combined. Ab ...[text shortened]... /Energy_accidents).

P.S. I personally am not a fan of nuclear in particular but, facts are facts.

That is a fracking issue. I have always been against fracking.

Your claim that coal is more radioactive is misleading. Nobody would dare compare that to a meltdown and all that radioactive water Japan wants to release into the sea of Japan. Would you be willing to eat fish caught in the sea of Japan after that water is being slowly released? That is why the fishermen there are angry.

@metal-brain said
Nobody would dare compare that to a meltdown and all that radioactive water Japan wants to release into the sea of Japan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

@humy said
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In other words you cannot back up your claim.

@metal-brain said
In other words you cannot back up your claim.

That wasn't my claim ("compare that to a meltdown and all that radioactive water Japan wants to release into the sea of Japan." -your staw man; I never made that comparison). That's way I call that your straw man. I assume you resort to straw man because you cannot backup your claims. I backed up mine with valid weblinks for all here to see so, you lie, as usual. But you fool nobody here.

@humy said
That wasn't my claim ("compare that to a meltdown and all that radioactive water Japan wants to release into the sea of Japan." -your staw man; I never made that comparison). That's way I call that your straw man. I assume you resort to straw man because you cannot backup your claims. I backed up mine with valid weblinks for all here to see so, you lie, as usual. But you fool nobody here.

So as long as nuclear power plants work without any problems you see fit to compare it to the safety of other sources of electricity.

You are omitting reality to move the goal post. If there were no safety issues with nuclear we would not be having this conversation. The safety issue is EXACTLY what this subject is about.

" A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

By denying the safety issue (the very heart of this whole debate) you are the one who is actually attacking a straw man. Your psychological projection a serious problem with you. Every time you attack a straw man you falsely accuse your opponent of the same.

You are illogical!

@metal-brain said
So as long as nuclear power plants work without any problems you see fit to compare it to the safety of other sources of electricity.

yet another straw man from you. ALL types of power stations and/or sources of power sometimes have "problems", including nuclear. I take that into account when making safety comparisons. Where did I imply I didn't? -answer; I didn't. Straw man.

By denying the safety issue

yet another straw man from you; I don't deny any safety issue. There are health and safety issues with both nuclear and fossil fuel power; the latter just happens to be the greater one in terms of death rates caused by it. I have shown you the links that show that; do you want me to show you those links yet again?