Again where is the hole? >> "What About the Waste?" Two people who 1. are not scientist 2. are not in the industry are giving their thoughts on something. (Nu

Again where is the hole? >> "What About the Waste?" Two people who 1. are not scientist 2. are not in the industry are giving their thoughts on something. (Nuclear is safe, but the nuclear industry doesn't agree with us is a very bad selling point) https://energy.sandia.gov/programs/nuclear-waste-management/geologic-disposal-of-nuclear-waste/ https://energy.sandia.gov/programs/nuclear-waste-management/... Or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin... Another sandia project. So you want to get advice from randoms on the internet, I want my advice from the lab that has been working on this for its entire existence. The lab (and its adjacent labs) that mint most of the PhD in and around high end nuclear research. I'll listen to actual experts, you can listen to the internet ones. ------------- IF they shut down pickering tomorrow, and decon the site, where does the material go? It's a question that the Japan does not have as it takes apart fukushima. They are building more plants to further dewater the concentrates from cooling. They have 800 tons of building that is highly contaminated that has to go somewhere for a few 1000 years. Again nuclear is safe till we stop keeping all those materials tightly controlled. The thing is there is a place in the world where there is a LOT of loose spent nuclear material just floating around in the open: https://hir.harvard.edu/depleted-uranium-devastated-health-military-operations-and-environmental-injustice-in-the-middle-east/ https://hir.harvard.edu/depleted-uranium-devastated-health-m... Candidly if nuclear is safe then we could go to Iraq and do the study and have the result that "it's not that bad". No one seems keen to fund this study, and likely for a good reason. And as for Chernobyl: https://blog.ucsusa.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-di... Or this from 2016: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:49089634 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:49089634 All of that and any number your going to site for Chernobyl is nonsense. 20 year old data tracking excess cancer deaths is going to be really stale. Here's what you can know, that even in 2005 the people who would have been most impacted, the liquidators, were calling those numbers into question. Much like any good insurance company if you reject the claim till the victim dies then you dont really have to pay... I suspect that in 20 years we're going to get a VERY different story out of Japan. That the cost is going to be measured, tracked and look much different. In fact were already seeing some of that today: https://apnews.com/article/science-health-accidents-tokyo-ddfe7c7477e9eb87b1fe0fc81c1ad204 https://apnews.com/article/science-health-accidents-tokyo-dd... But the UN said it was fine... sadly the latest research just shot most of the defense for this down: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/18/4583 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/18/4583