U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2015 are 12% below their 2005 levels

[NNadir]

4. The experimental danger, observed over half a century of direct experience of nuclear energy...

...is trivial compared to the danger of fossil fuels over the same period.

I don't know why this is mysterious. It's clear simply by doing a body count.

Anyone who can count can directly experience this effect, if and only if, they don't ignore the effects of dangerous fossil fuels.

Right now, despite all the crap handed out a myriad of anti-nuke sites, each provision of links to these organizations being more stupid than the previous such link, seven million people die each year from air pollution.

Lots of physicians, most physicians in fact, are aware of this, even if the so called "physicians for social responsibility" couldn't care less. Maybe some of the members of the "Physicians for Social Responsibility" should take some time to open up the scientific medical journal, The Lancet to see where, exactly, in the comprehensive paper assembled by physicians and epidemiologists around the world of the 67 major causes of mortality worldwide, nuclear energy appears as a risk. The linked paper is whence my 7 million per year figure comes.

Or maybe, just maybe, some one so lazy as merely to produce a link to this idiot website could open the paper themselves to see if the rhetoric on the "Physicians for Social Responsibility" website is valid.

If not maybe someone with enough stomach - I don't qualify - to endure the website of the "Physicians for Social Responsibility" can tell me the source of their claims.

How many deaths did the gas bags, um whoops, I mean the "physicians for social responsibility" identify for the half a century of commercial nuclear operations worldwide? How did they accumulate their data?

Surely this data is available. After all, nuclear energy is, by far, the largest and most mature form of greenhouse gas free primary energy. After 60 years of operations, I'm sure there's some data, is there not?

Please provide the answer in terms time, the unit of time having a conversion factor of 19,000 deaths per day, the number of people who die from air pollution each day. Thus if you can identify - using something called "the primary scientific literature" as opposed to yet another link to the self-referential anti-nuke websites citing each other - 1,900,000 people killed by commercial nuclear power operations, you would report "The Physicians for Social Responsibility assert that nuclear power is as dangerous as 100 days of air pollution."

If the Lancet paper cited and linked above - unread as it may be by "Physicians for Social Responsibility" - is correct, it takes between 7 to 9 years for air pollution to kill as many people as died from all causes, genocide, combat, maltreatment of prisoners, bombings and cross fires, in World War II.

I wouldn't consider it "social responsibility" to ignore that fact, but perhaps my ethics are peculiar, I don't know.

Thanks in advance for providing your answer. I'm sure it will be illuminating.

Best regards,

NNadir

P.S. Have a nice evening.