I’m trying to find a charitable way to interpret your criticism, and I haven’t been able to find one. In every post in this thread, TeMPOraL has been making a

I’m trying to find a charitable way to interpret your criticism, and I haven’t been able to find one. In every post in this thread, TeMPOraL has been making a consistent argument that nuclear produces orders of magnitude less waste than other not-routinely-treated-as-horrible industrial waste issues. You appear to be making the argument that “because there isn’t much of it” is a new argument, but that appears to be the core of their argument everywhere. Perhaps you were confusing who said what?