Bullshit. While noting that the subject is once again changed from the assertion fear of...

[NNadir]

...radiation used in the successful marketing by deadly antinukes, I note that this marketing, which kills 19,000 people a day from air pollution - the failure of clean nuclear energy to save lives is the result of willful destruction of nuclear infrastructure - I have clearly and ambiguously referred to load leveling with reference to the primary scientific literature in this space.

I'm certainly not one of the airheads who show up here to attack nuclear energy and then complain that their destructive rhetoric has been successful.

The fucking air heads complaining about so called "nuclear waste," have never shown, and cannot show that the storage of used nuclear fuel for 70 years has killed as many people as will die from air pollution in the next six hours.

Climate change and air pollution are fossil fuel waste. The difference between fossil fuel waste is what uneducated idiots call valuable used nuclear fuel, so called "nuclear waste," is that fossil fuel waste kills people and so called "nuclear waste" has a spectacular record of not killing anyone.

I challenge yet another of the dumb antinukes here to show that the storage of used nuclear fuel in the United States has killed anyone in this century in this country.

I know what I'll get in response to this question: Evasions, nonsense, and no response.

The woman pictured in this post is a Ph.D engineering student: [link:Brilliant Young Woman Poses Reclined On a Dry Cask of Used Nuclear Fuel.|Brilliant Young Woman Poses Reclined On a Dry Cask of Used Nuclear Fuel.]

I have shown, again with appeal to the primary scientific literature, that complete actinide recycling - the last best hope for defeating the deaths resulting from ignorance, will, after around 300 years, actually reduce the radioactivity of the planet.

The reference (which is in German) with its graphic, is found about midway down in this post written to another "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke who whined about the collapse of a tunnel at the Hanford reservation.

828 Underground Nuclear Tests, Plutonium Migration in Nevada, Dunning, Kruger, Strawmen, and Tunnels

The following figure shows the very different case obtained if one separates the uranium, plutonium and minor actinides (neptunium, americium and curium) and fissions them, whereupon the reduction of radioactivity to a level that is actually below that of the original uranium in a little over 300 years:



The caption:

Fig. 4. – Radiotoxicity (log-scale, unit: Sv/tSM) of 1 t of heavy metal (SM) from a pressurized water reactor (initial enrichment 4.2% U-235, burn-up 50 GWd/t) with regard to ingestion as a function of time (log-scale, unit: years) after discharge. Left-hand frame: contribution of fission products (FP), plutonium (Pu) and minor actinides (MA) to radiotoxicity. Right-hand frame: Modification of radiotoxicity due to separation of U, Pu or U, Pu, MA. The reference value is the radiotoxicity of the amount of natural uranium that was used to produce 1 t of nuclear fuel. Source: [17].

The post is full of references to the primary scientific literature, about 25 or 30 references, and touches on all the stuff that about which antinukes neither know about or care about, chemistry, physics, physiology, geology etc.

Now we have yet another in the series of "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes who engages in mindless soothsaying claiming that used nuclear fuel will kill someone someday without a shred of evidence that it ever has or ever will, while ignoring deaths yesterday, today, tomorrow, last year, next year the next fucking half hour from fossil fuels. This is very, very, very selective attention, purely absurd, devoid of any trace of evidence of ethical or scientific training.

Now, let me ask one more time, fully expecting evasions and denial, "Does radiation kill 19,000 people per day as fossil fuels does?"

The related question that all "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes who complain about so called "nuclear waste" but don't give a shit about fossil fuel waste. "Has the storage of used nuclear fuel, which uneducated people call "nuclear waste" killed in the 70 year history of commercial nuclear power as many people as will die from air pollution in the next six hours, about 4500 people?"

As for "gaslighting," I would like to suggest that we are hearing about "gaslighting" from someone who comes here announcing "I'm not an antinuke" and yet drags out every stupid make believe scare story about nuclear energy nonetheless and absolutely refuses attention to the costs of successfully demonizing nuclear energy with the same rote 50 year old bullshit, thus killing human beings and leaving the planet in flames.

It's very transparent, and one can't say that it's "vaguely" Trumpian. It's obviously Trumpian.

Once again. The assertion is that radiation from nuclear power plants is dangerous. Compared to what? Does radiation from nuclear power plants kill 19,000 people a day every day or does it not?

Any answer appropriately numerical will require supporting references. Otherwise it's just more handwaving sloganeering bullshit that kills people and increases the effects of climate change.

I eagerly await an answer as opposed to subject changing, slogans and whining.

Since there is very little difference, year to year, decade to decade, from the regular series of "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes here, I know there won't be an answer to the question, because one does not exist.