> I don't think I'm irrational and would be grateful to anyone pointing out some [dubious] material of mine given as a solid argument. > The total impact on he

> I don't think I'm irrational and would be grateful to anyone pointing out some [dubious] material of mine given as a solid argument. > The total impact on health (and therefore the real costs) of the nuclear industry will only be known when the last site will be completely decommissioned and the last waste innocuous. Allow me to point out that this argument can be defeated easily with a relatively simple thought experiment. Your claim is that the impact of a health hazard cannot be assessed until the health hazard itself has spontaneously become innocuous. Radiological hazards are fairly unique in their characteristic of becoming innocuous with time. Compared to analogous hazardous materials, say for example, mercury. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It was always a neurotoxin and it always will be. This was used in household thermometers for decades until too many kids broke them and became injured. So we banned them, moved the hazard out of ready access, and now fewer people get mercury poison. Clearly, we can make this assessment even though the mercury still exists somewhere, and is still a neurotoxin. Et voila, this impossible goalpost you have set up crumbles by reductio ad absurdum. Nuclear waste is a hazardous material. When it is moved out of reach, we can assess the health hazard. We have done this over the past 60 years of nuclear operation and the numbers are in. Here they are: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy (yes this doesn't list wind and solar. Yes wind and solar are extremely safe too. That's why we need more wind, solar, and nuclear). It saddens me when people eschew considering the expansion of our natural nuclear resources of Earth in order to save human civilization from climate change. But that is a choice they are free to make. You mention Germany again. Recall that Germany quite literally and unambiguously chose to kill about 1000 extra people per year with air pollution from brown coal rather than continue to operate their high-quality nuclear assets. This appears very difficult to defend. How can one defend this seemingly inhumane choice? Was it thought that continuing the nuclear plants would possibly kill more than 1000/year? In this case it very literally is a choice between brown coal and nuclear. Germany chose coal. I find this shameful.