There's already loads of radioactivity down here, and that gives rise to a where-do-you-draw-the-line problem.

If you suppress your critical faculties in order to avoid disbelieving lies that benefit the world's oil and gas tax revenue takers and profit takers, your intelligence becomes, regrettably, highly insultable.

Compared to the amount leaked in March 2011, all subsequent leakages add up to a pinprick. That March 2011 leakage itself is a pinprick in marine natural radioactivity terms.

Indeed, it would have to be much larger than the injection of 4.5 billion tonnes of never-manhandled uranium, because that's how much is there. It's about one-sixth of seawater's radioactivity. Radiopotassium is the other five-sixths.

As someone who has worked in government, you have pocketed tax receipts on fuels that do as reported in tinyurl.com/monoxo , and are many times more expensive than uranium. It is understandable, but disgusting, that you might wish to misdirect attention away from spent nuclear fuel's record of harmlessness in practice…

We have an example where gamma rays, although invisible, produced visible effects: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/… . By the width of the swath, you can see that the mean-free-path in air of the rays that did that damage has to be around 200 metres.

"They still have negative impacts, but nothing on the order nuclear is capable of …" — that could be considered true, if "nothing on the order" is allowed to mean "on a significantly greater order".

This seems to amount to a dishonest suggestion that nuclear power killed people at Fukushima.

But only Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real.

See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ful… .

Fun fact: the technology had "come a long way from the time of chernobyl" 30 or more years before Chernobyl's foundation was laid. Dr. Teller ("Father of the H-Bomb") led a Reactor Safeguard Committee which advised the US of how to make sure a Chernobyl never happened; this advice was followed everywhere except the…

"I'm sure it's more environmentally friendly than, say, coal …" — vastly more so. Also very clean compared to the Alberta tar sands operation, which you can see as a white scar next to Fort McMurray in this satellite view: https://maps.google.com/?t=…

Many of them do. The presence on-site of NRC people, two per reactor, is particularly reassuring.