...for dealing with dangerous fossil fuel waste, which along with dangerous biomass waste kills 7 million people per year while people prattle on about so called "nuclear waste?"
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.
Let me know if you can find any reference in this comprehensive paper on deaths associated with so called "nuclear waste."
In fact, the main difference between what people who know essentially zero about used nuclear fuels and thus call them "nuclear waste" and dangerous fossil fuel waste is that dangerous fossil fuel waste kills people and so called "nuclear waste," um, doesn't.
Am I supposed to endorse killing people because of someone's selective attention?
Or can I be something other than one of Pavlov's canines and mindlessly produce the word "waste" whenever nuclear energy is mentioned while not giving a fuck about waste from other forms of energy that actually kills people?
As it happens, after 30 years of studying the composition of used nuclear fuels in the primary scientific literature, I have convinced myself that the contents of used nuclear fuel are extremely valuable and essential to saving the world.
But it would take a lot of education to get that. My journal here is thick with stuff, but a lot of it is about used nuclear fuels.
By the way, on this website, I have posted several times, utilizing the comprehensive database of the Danish Energy Agency, the mean lifetime of wind turbines. It's less than 20 years, before it will become landfill needing to be hauled away using giant trucks.
So called "renewable energy" is not clean; it is not sustainable' and it isn't even "renewable."
The biggest problem with it is, of course, that it hasn't worked, isn't working, and won't work to address climate change.
Seriously, which is a bigger problem for humanity, canisters of used nuclear fuel waiting for intelligent people to put them to use, or climate change? Seriously? S-E-R-I-O-U-S-L-Y.
Nuclear energy saves lives and it has proved to be the most effective retarding agent on climate change of any source of energy:
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)
By contrast with so called "renewable energy," the high energy density of uranium, which is essentially inexhaustible, makes nuclear energy very sustainable, particularly because all of the components of used nuclear fuel have incredible value, or would have value in a world where people respected science and engineering, hardly the world we live in.
Have a nice day.
= new reply since forum marked as read