A systematic "omics" (molecular biology) approach to the effects of radiation on living tissue.

[NNadir]

2. I apologize for overlooking your post.

I'm not saying "nuclear energy could save us."

I'm saying it's our last, best hope. Either we embrace it, or the world falls apart.

I have a standard answer whenever I hear about so called "nuclear waste."

I do this:

I produce a reference to the primary scientific literature, which is open sourced, detailing the death toll associated with major risks causing disease and death.

It is here:

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

I then produce an excerpt from the paper focusing with bold on the deaths from air pollution, which although it is never described as such is "dangerous fossil fuel waste."

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).

I then ask anyone and everyone commenting on so called "nuclear waste" to identify, in the 70 year history of nuclear energy, to identify as many people as have died in a relatively short time period from air pollution, an hour (750 dead), a day, (around 18,000 dead), a week, (around 129,000 dead.)

I never get a response, even if the time period I use is an hour (750 dead).

If it's so damned dangerous, where are the dead?

(Used nuclear fuel is a very valuable material as it turns out, but society isn't quite "there" yet.)

You are decidedly not a fool if you question what has been drilled into your mind by rote chanting for decades, which is that "nuclear waste" or "nuclear accidents" blah, blah, blah, are somehow remotely a major concern whereas the deaths of around 70 million people a decade from dangerous fossil fuel (and biomass) combustion waste isn't, that the things about which anti-nukes chant insipidly are a concern on the level of climate change.

It's not even close. It's as absurd to say so as it is to believe any of the drivel that drools out of the mouth of Donald Trump, in short, a bald and obvious lie, but one that has entered urban mythology and has provided an enormous death toll.

One of the things drilled into people's minds, which is as nonsensical as the idea that vaccines are dangerous, is that there is no acceptable level of radiation. This is nonsense, based on what can only be characterized as very weak work performed in the 1940's, almost 80 years ago, the point of my post.

Nuclear energy is not risk free. It doesn't have to be risk free to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

Thank you for your comment and what sounds like a mind that could be opening.

For the record, in my youth, I was an anti-nuke fool, just like many who write here. It was because I was uneducated. Then the Chernobyl reactor exploded, offering us the worst case. I began to educate myself to understand the event. Considering it, I changed my mind.

I have considered nuclear energy to be essential to human survival on a decent and sustainable scale since around 1988 or 1989. I consider it the only form of sustainable energy. I've taken a lot of flack for it, but I support nuclear energy because it is the right thing to do. It's about ethics. I couldn't die with a sense of decency if I had kept my mouth shut.

Have a nice evening and day tomorrow. Thanks again for your comment.