...in many of the posts originating here with me.
However, I am acquainted with the dangerous and deadly notion that science is too much to "plow through."
It's funny, with all the wonderful retrospectives on the Apollo program how far we've come from times in which scientists and engineers were respected.
I also surely don't expect some person emoting about some bullshit crap about so called "nuclear waste" to appreciate science.
I asked a simple and direct question of anyone who is concerned about the concept of so called "nuclear waste."
Valuable used nuclear fuels have been accumulating for more than 60 years in the commercial sphere. I understand the science of these materials intimately. I challenged someone to produce data that it kills something like the 70 million people who died from air pollution.
Here is the most recent full report from the Global Burden of Disease Report, a survey of all causes of death and disability from environmental and lifestyle risks: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.
Where exactly in this publication is the death toll from so called "nuclear waste," or a putative "nuclear waste industry?"
If someone has an answer to this very simple question, it should be fairly easy to produce it. I mean, used nuclear fuel has been accumulating for more than half a century. Where, exactly, are the dead?
If, in contrast to producing real numbers, someone complains about the obvious inference that someone can draw from the results of attack on the nuclear industry - that would be climate change, heat deaths, and air pollution deaths - attacks on an industry which has prevented the dumping of more than 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide, and might have done far more were it not for the ignorant and fearful, easily interpreted from data, well, I'm unimpressed.
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
I'm used to ignorance, as we live in obvious times where it is celebrated, largely but hardly only on the right.
The fact that anti-nukes hold scientific publications in contempt is hardly news to me. I'm used to that.
Really though, these people just piss me off. Their ignorance is destroying a future that did not belong to them, betting the future on horseshit "by 2050" and "by 2100" bull about so called "renewable energy" that is not sustainable, did not work, is not working, and won't work.
Mostly these days I put these awful people with their Trump type distortions of reality on my ignore list here, but here and there, I forget a few, at least until they show up whining rather than producing real numbers.
Have a nice life.
= new reply since forum marked as read
