[Kvasir]

Originally Posted by Prof_Sai

Oh gawd, again? I followed deuterium because Kvasir said he doesn't drink sea water. I could have traced Sr 90 and Cs 137 through fish and animal feed, but I didn't want to get bogged down in a side issue. (And I notice you don't mention the longer lived isotopes.)

But you guys are desperate for side issues so you can ignore the central point: Each one of these nuclear disasters makes our whole planet more radioactive, and they are going to keep happening until we stop using these reactors.

Tomorrow you might get a call saying flee your home city and never come back and maybe after 15 years of litigation we'll pay you a third of the value of what you lost. Will it matter to you then that someone tried real hard, and not ALL of the byproducts were deadly?

So you're perfectly cool writing off a technology based on the basic ramifications it can have(and they are basic)? More people die via cars than radiation a year, PERIOD. We need to write it off, because people STILL die every year in automotive accidents and they're going to continue killing for years to come. That's you're argument as far as I can tell, because cars will continue existing and they have a far more direct effect on everything then radiation has. Well that is if you're not shoving your face into an elephant foot oozing from one of the few major incidents that have occurred in the 50+ years of nuclear plants existing. It's Dangerous and yes it has ramifications I'm just not convinced they outweigh the potential benefits and I likely never will be.

I'm sorry, but its clear this discussion will go nowhere other than downward because we are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. I'll agree to disagree with you because that's the best we can do here.

Can you explain this one? Perhaps we don't agree on what "being shoved under a rug" means.

In that discussion you mentioned ONLY the people fighting coal. It didn't say "people are fighting coal just as much" it was "but people are fighting coal". Those have two very different meanings to me and I read it as "but people ARE fighting coal" as if they WEREN'T fighting nuclear energy. It's just how I interrupted that sentiment, it seemed wrong so I asked. Its a semantic thing I just wanted to figure out so no biggie.

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

Anyway. I trust you're talking about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY . These sound great and I really hope that liquid fluoride thorium reactors catch on to replace what we have today. They seem far more efficient and most importantly far safer than current plants.

See I agree here, I WOULD prefer it be safer and that sounds like a good step. (Of course I write a comment and miss good points, but thats what editing is for)