Nuke power plant question raised again.

[KissMy]

While water does not have the romance of oil or natural gas, and does not get the defense, because it is provided by municipalities, rather than for profit companies.

However, see which you can go the longest without, water, natural gas, or oil.

And we are already short of water in many urban areas. Can we afford to contaminate water for the recovery of oil or natural gas?

Only the west coast douche bags are low on water. The Midwest has more than it needs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While water does not have the romance of oil or natural gas, and does not get the defense, because it is provided by municipalities, rather than for profit companies.

However, see which you can go the longest without, water, natural gas, or oil.

And we are already short of water in many urban areas. Can we afford to contaminate water for the recovery of oil or natural gas?

Seventy percent of the planets surface is covered in water, much of it thousands of feet deep. What makes you think we are running short of it?

 

[taichiliberal]

On Sight Fuel Repossessing would be a big plus, it would actually eliminate the dangers in transport and stockpiling wasted fuel rods. I would want to see modern plants built in more remote areas, away from known earthquake, flood, tornado areas. Areas where security is at an advantage, and evacuation actually doable.

We should not be blocking Natural Gas Plants, nor Hydro, both technologies are much more highly advanced than the past. There are Multiple advantages here. They also don't all shut down at once, because of a glitch in the system, leaving everyone screwed for weeks, like the nuke plants do. We need a stronger infrastructure, not a handicapped one.

I posted a link that shows France shipping it's waste to Russia for reprocessing. Thing is, there will STILL be waste after the reprocessing, and there are NO plans I know of to build facilities that would begin to reprocess the DECADES of accumulated nuke waste deposited around the world. And there are NO plans to shut down and decontaminate the current plants that are LONG past there designed operating capacity.

There was a process presented that would SAFELY DECONTAMINATE nuclear waste and their by-products, but Wall St. speculation killed it years ago. I'll get the name of the process and post it...the story may no longer be available on the web, but I'll try.

A note on natural gas: do some research as to why the USA won't pay Mexico a decent price for their hefty natural gas supplies.

And a "glitch" in nuke plants can result in more than just a small wire fire.

 

[taichiliberal]

learn to stop being a whiny little Windbag bitch, because You could read EVERYTHING I posted and responded to. Bottom line: an intellectually bankrupt Windbag can't logically or factually refute what I post, so he blows smoke.

I am too stupid to do what intelligent people do, you are required by the liberal aganda to compensate for my lack of intelligence by pretending I am as smart as everyone else.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your statement, you dense Windbag. See, in a debate/discussion, when you make a statement and people ask you to provide proof of what you say, that doesn't mean you just repeat your BS by turning it into a question. Any High School English teacher heading a Debate Squad will tell you that. So quit your stalling, my intellectually bankrupt Windbag....prove what you say or just keep blowing smoke.

Proof of what? That there are idiots who oppose nuclear power?

Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you realize that you can't bullshit your way past me when the chronology of the posts shows what statements were made, how they were responded to and what evidence was presented to support a persons statements or responses? Knock of the Windbag bullshit, get your quantum shit together and honestly debate the issue as it happens.

Like I said in a previous post, learn to cut and paste. If you do you might not end up talking about one thing after posting about another.

You're a lying Windbag, as the chronology of the posts shows. What you state here is NOT what you were stating point for point previously. Why don't you fucking grow up and just deal with being wrong on a point? It won't kill you, as I and others have done so when warranted on these discussion boards for years.

Bottom line: history shows how the unwilling the nuclear power industry was and is to change or to be open to critical review by experts in the field. Regardless of all the alleged new designs, there were NO plans regarding nuclear waste that accumulated from old or proposed new nuke plants. It's the same old storage or bury or ship it around BS....and the existing plants that operated with all types of flaws, mishaps and accidents were ardently defended (and still are ) as perfectly safe and within safe parameters.

And as I've documented here, that's just a Windbag of bullshit.

History shows that you are an idiot liberal.

And as you can see folks, once properly challenged with facts and a logical, rational discourse, our Quantum Windbag just lives up to his screen name. Someone clue in the dumb bastard Windbag that Wiki-pedia is NOT a reliable source material.

 

[taichiliberal]

And for those who STILL have their heads either in the sand or up Limbaugh's/Hannity's ass and think that Japan's problem has no possible equivalent here:


It's too risky to keep Indian Point nuclear power plant open: Gov. Cuomo

It's too risky to keep Indian Point nuclear power plant open: Gov. Cuomo

 

[taichiliberal]

Within two months the vast majority of ionizing radiation (the dangerous stuff) will be gone. The rest is fairly benign and while you don't want to eat it or sleep in it, it is mild enough as to be no longer a problem.

Two hours, let alone two months of exposure to certain levels of radiation will set you up for future cancers and such that may or may not be treatable, if it doesn't kill you outright in a matter of days or weeks. The "fairly benign" stuff you mention will be in the ground, water, food, live stock...and that's a nice set up for future cancers. This is a major FUBB (fucked up beyond belief) syndrome that won't be minimized by NRC, nuclear industry or gov't placating or rationalization.

Only partially true. Ionizing radiation is the only type you need worry about. Radioactive isotopes with long half lives like Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 at 28 and 30 years each approximately are benign so long as you do not ingest them. Years long exposure to large concentrations is another story but that is not the scenario here. Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, which means it's radiating like a son of a bitch. That will kill you, the rest no. There have been extensive tests and monitoring of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors as well as the British Commonwealth POWs who were within a mile and a half from one of the bombs. There has been no discernible effect from the radiation. So long as you survived the initial radiation effects the following years saw the survivors lead normal lives with the normal rates of cancer etc. In fact the only known survivor of both weapons, Tsutomu Yamaguchi just died at the age of 93. The cause was stomach cancer but he was 20 years older than the average age of death so I doubt that was a factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07yamaguchi.html

Not quite....check this out:


Health effects of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination

And then there's this:

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation looked at thyroid conditions, known to be linked to radiation exposure.

The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


THE BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
6 August 1945 - US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima
9 August - Nagasaki is bombed
Around 214,000 people were killed in the bombings
Japan surrendered to the Allies on 14 August 1945

People who have been exposed to radiation are known to be at an increased risk of malignant and benign thyroid nodules, but few studies have followed them for long periods.

Studies of children, including those exposed to radiation after the Chernobyl disaster, have shown the younger a person is the higher the risk of thyroid conditions.

Between 2000 and 2003, the Japanese researchers looked at the incidence of thyroid diseases among 3,185 people, with an average age of 70, who had been in the cities when the bombs hit.

The team also looked at people's level of exposure to radiation - which was possible because all those studied had been followed throughout their lives.

Young 'at greater risk'

Just under 45% - 1,833 - of those studied had malignant tumours, nodules [lumps on the thyroid] and cysts.


This is a unique survey that provides an important insight
Professor Sarah Darby, Cancer Research UK

Those who were aged under 20 when the atomic bombs dropped had a higher risk of disease than those who had been older.

The researchers, led by Dr Misa Imaizumi, wrote in JAMA: "The present study revealed that, 55 to 58 years after radiation exposure, a significant relationship existed in the prevalence of not only malignant thyroid tumours but also benign thyroid nodules and that the relationship was significantly higher in those exposed at younger ages.

"Thus, the effect of radiation on the thyroid nodules may exist long after radiation exposure in atomic bomb survivors."

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

 

[taichiliberal]

There is a safe form of nuclear energy and we won't endorse it because it doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct:

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm, sounds good but

Thorium reactors

Which was a long winded version of "show me". He never addresses any of the science. he just talks about economists jokes. Not particularly helpful there chum.

You should have read it more carefully:



The fast breeder reactor is only the second stage of a long-term project. “There are no defined time lines as lot of technology development, research and demonstration activities need to be completed before commercial deployment of thorium reactors for power,” Thakur told me in an email. “I think it is decades away.” First, he explains, “we need to have a significant capacity of the fast breeder reactors where thorium could be used as a blanket.” (For a good overview on what this means, read this article on thorium reactor physics at the World Nuclear Association.)





"...Ultimately, we can argue all we want, but the proof will come in the most basic possible form—someone submitting a credible design to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission or some analogous body. So far, that hasn’t happened. NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell told Spectrum that there “isn't anything on our radar for a thorium-based reactor at this point.” "

 

[taichiliberal]

That is some funny shit

Not as funny as what I did to you on Post #27, of which you obviously have no logical or rational response to. Carry on.

Oh ok, I get it. You make a crystal clear mistake for everyone to witness, Yet you run away and don't own up to it? Yeah, just what I figured from a coward with no honor. And just for the record, if you think that you can spin and twist things in order to fool the stupid sheople, just remember you're the one shoveling their crap up in the barn. You're not even smart enough to be one of them. Just scrape up that shit because that's all a blind, lying, useful tool like yourself is worth. ~BH

WTF is this Bolshevik fool babbling about?

 

[westwall]

Two hours, let alone two months of exposure to certain levels of radiation will set you up for future cancers and such that may or may not be treatable, if it doesn't kill you outright in a matter of days or weeks. The "fairly benign" stuff you mention will be in the ground, water, food, live stock...and that's a nice set up for future cancers. This is a major FUBB (fucked up beyond belief) syndrome that won't be minimized by NRC, nuclear industry or gov't placating or rationalization.

Only partially true. Ionizing radiation is the only type you need worry about. Radioactive isotopes with long half lives like Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 at 28 and 30 years each approximately are benign so long as you do not ingest them. Years long exposure to large concentrations is another story but that is not the scenario here. Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, which means it's radiating like a son of a bitch. That will kill you, the rest no. There have been extensive tests and monitoring of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors as well as the British Commonwealth POWs who were within a mile and a half from one of the bombs. There has been no discernible effect from the radiation. So long as you survived the initial radiation effects the following years saw the survivors lead normal lives with the normal rates of cancer etc. In fact the only known survivor of both weapons, Tsutomu Yamaguchi just died at the age of 93. The cause was stomach cancer but he was 20 years older than the average age of death so I doubt that was a factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07yamaguchi.html

Not quite....check this out:


Health effects of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination

And then there's this:

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation looked at thyroid conditions, known to be linked to radiation exposure.

The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


THE BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
6 August 1945 - US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima
9 August - Nagasaki is bombed
Around 214,000 people were killed in the bombings
Japan surrendered to the Allies on 14 August 1945

People who have been exposed to radiation are known to be at an increased risk of malignant and benign thyroid nodules, but few studies have followed them for long periods.

Studies of children, including those exposed to radiation after the Chernobyl disaster, have shown the younger a person is the higher the risk of thyroid conditions.

Between 2000 and 2003, the Japanese researchers looked at the incidence of thyroid diseases among 3,185 people, with an average age of 70, who had been in the cities when the bombs hit.

The team also looked at people's level of exposure to radiation - which was possible because all those studied had been followed throughout their lives.

Young 'at greater risk'

Just under 45% - 1,833 - of those studied had malignant tumours, nodules [lumps on the thyroid] and cysts.


This is a unique survey that provides an important insight
Professor Sarah Darby, Cancer Research UK

Those who were aged under 20 when the atomic bombs dropped had a higher risk of disease than those who had been older.

The researchers, led by Dr Misa Imaizumi, wrote in JAMA: "The present study revealed that, 55 to 58 years after radiation exposure, a significant relationship existed in the prevalence of not only malignant thyroid tumours but also benign thyroid nodules and that the relationship was significantly higher in those exposed at younger ages.

"Thus, the effect of radiation on the thyroid nodules may exist long after radiation exposure in atomic bomb survivors."

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

Everything you posted reinforces what I said about ionizing radiation. The section you cut and pasted had this little missive at the end.....

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

Which means that if you survive the initial burst of ionizing radiation you have little to fear. There was no measurable difference between those exposed and those unexposed.
That is all that matters. Ionizing radiation will cause you to be terribly ill for a while. If you recieved a really bad dose you have hours, if you recieved a moderate dose you will survive but there is a real good chance of developing blood cancers and other cancers, especially those of the thyroid (because of the iodine 131). Those will kill you within a few years. If you recieved a light dose you have little to fear unless you are unlucky. In other words, those with light doses of radiation (even ionizing) run the same risks as those of the general population to develop cancers.

 

[taichiliberal]

Only partially true. Ionizing radiation is the only type you need worry about. Radioactive isotopes with long half lives like Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 at 28 and 30 years each approximately are benign so long as you do not ingest them. Years long exposure to large concentrations is another story but that is not the scenario here. Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, which means it's radiating like a son of a bitch. That will kill you, the rest no. There have been extensive tests and monitoring of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors as well as the British Commonwealth POWs who were within a mile and a half from one of the bombs. There has been no discernible effect from the radiation. So long as you survived the initial radiation effects the following years saw the survivors lead normal lives with the normal rates of cancer etc. In fact the only known survivor of both weapons, Tsutomu Yamaguchi just died at the age of 93. The cause was stomach cancer but he was 20 years older than the average age of death so I doubt that was a factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07yamaguchi.html

Not quite....check this out:


Health effects of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination

And then there's this:

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation looked at thyroid conditions, known to be linked to radiation exposure.

The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


THE BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
6 August 1945 - US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima
9 August - Nagasaki is bombed
Around 214,000 people were killed in the bombings
Japan surrendered to the Allies on 14 August 1945

People who have been exposed to radiation are known to be at an increased risk of malignant and benign thyroid nodules, but few studies have followed them for long periods.

Studies of children, including those exposed to radiation after the Chernobyl disaster, have shown the younger a person is the higher the risk of thyroid conditions.

Between 2000 and 2003, the Japanese researchers looked at the incidence of thyroid diseases among 3,185 people, with an average age of 70, who had been in the cities when the bombs hit.

The team also looked at people's level of exposure to radiation - which was possible because all those studied had been followed throughout their lives.

Young 'at greater risk'

Just under 45% - 1,833 - of those studied had malignant tumours, nodules [lumps on the thyroid] and cysts.


This is a unique survey that provides an important insight
Professor Sarah Darby, Cancer Research UK

Those who were aged under 20 when the atomic bombs dropped had a higher risk of disease than those who had been older.

The researchers, led by Dr Misa Imaizumi, wrote in JAMA: "The present study revealed that, 55 to 58 years after radiation exposure, a significant relationship existed in the prevalence of not only malignant thyroid tumours but also benign thyroid nodules and that the relationship was significantly higher in those exposed at younger ages.

"Thus, the effect of radiation on the thyroid nodules may exist long after radiation exposure in atomic bomb survivors."

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

Everything you posted reinforces what I said about ionizing radiation. The section you cut and pasted had this little missive at the end.....

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

Which means that if you survive the initial burst of ionizing radiation you have little to fear. There was no measurable difference between those exposed and those unexposed.
That is all that matters. Ionizing radiation will cause you to be terribly ill for a while. If you recieved a really bad dose you have hours, if you recieved a moderate dose you will survive but there is a real good chance of developing blood cancers and other cancers, especially those of the thyroid (because of the iodine 131). Those will kill you within a few years. If you recieved a light dose you have little to fear unless you are unlucky. In other words, those with light doses of radiation (even ionizing) run the same risks as those of the general population to develop cancers.

Ms. Darby's conclusion tries to equalize an unnatural introduction of radioactive materials with "natural" exposure over a period of time. I don't quite get what she deems "unlucky"...but as the other material I showed gives an example of a lot of "unlucky" people who didn't quite fall into Ms. Darby's slot.

 

[westwall]

Not quite....check this out:


Health effects of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination

And then there's this:

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation looked at thyroid conditions, known to be linked to radiation exposure.

The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


THE BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
6 August 1945 - US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima
9 August - Nagasaki is bombed
Around 214,000 people were killed in the bombings
Japan surrendered to the Allies on 14 August 1945

People who have been exposed to radiation are known to be at an increased risk of malignant and benign thyroid nodules, but few studies have followed them for long periods.

Studies of children, including those exposed to radiation after the Chernobyl disaster, have shown the younger a person is the higher the risk of thyroid conditions.

Between 2000 and 2003, the Japanese researchers looked at the incidence of thyroid diseases among 3,185 people, with an average age of 70, who had been in the cities when the bombs hit.

The team also looked at people's level of exposure to radiation - which was possible because all those studied had been followed throughout their lives.

Young 'at greater risk'

Just under 45% - 1,833 - of those studied had malignant tumours, nodules [lumps on the thyroid] and cysts.


This is a unique survey that provides an important insight
Professor Sarah Darby, Cancer Research UK

Those who were aged under 20 when the atomic bombs dropped had a higher risk of disease than those who had been older.

The researchers, led by Dr Misa Imaizumi, wrote in JAMA: "The present study revealed that, 55 to 58 years after radiation exposure, a significant relationship existed in the prevalence of not only malignant thyroid tumours but also benign thyroid nodules and that the relationship was significantly higher in those exposed at younger ages.

"Thus, the effect of radiation on the thyroid nodules may exist long after radiation exposure in atomic bomb survivors."

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

Everything you posted reinforces what I said about ionizing radiation. The section you cut and pasted had this little missive at the end.....

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

Which means that if you survive the initial burst of ionizing radiation you have little to fear. There was no measurable difference between those exposed and those unexposed.
That is all that matters. Ionizing radiation will cause you to be terribly ill for a while. If you recieved a really bad dose you have hours, if you recieved a moderate dose you will survive but there is a real good chance of developing blood cancers and other cancers, especially those of the thyroid (because of the iodine 131). Those will kill you within a few years. If you recieved a light dose you have little to fear unless you are unlucky. In other words, those with light doses of radiation (even ionizing) run the same risks as those of the general population to develop cancers.

Ms. Darby's conclusion tries to equalize an unnatural introduction of radioactive materials with "natural" exposure over a period of time. I don't quite get what she deems "unlucky"...but as the other material I showed gives an example of a lot of "unlucky" people who didn't quite fall into Ms. Darby's slot.

None of what you posted negates what I have laid out above. Ionizing radiation is the killer. The only way you can get any sort of health issues from Strontium or Cesium is if you ingest them. Then you get to die. On the other hand if you take simple precautions those radioactive isotopes can't hurt you. They primarily emit alpha and beta particles that can be stopped by a sheet of paper. You can wash off the radiation with no deleterious effects.

Do you want to sleep in a area contaminated with them? No, of course not...that would be classified as stupid now wouldn't it.

 

[taichiliberal]

While water does not have the romance of oil or natural gas, and does not get the defense, because it is provided by municipalities, rather than for profit companies.

However, see which you can go the longest without, water, natural gas, or oil.

And we are already short of water in many urban areas. Can we afford to contaminate water for the recovery of oil or natural gas?

Seventy percent of the planets surface is covered in water, much of it thousands of feet deep. What makes you think we are running short of it?

Viable Drinking water is not as plentiful as you think. And contaminating the oceans can lead to limitations on the sea life that we've come to depend on to meet our dietary requirements.

 

[taichiliberal]

Everything you posted reinforces what I said about ionizing radiation. The section you cut and pasted had this little missive at the end.....

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."

Which means that if you survive the initial burst of ionizing radiation you have little to fear. There was no measurable difference between those exposed and those unexposed.
That is all that matters. Ionizing radiation will cause you to be terribly ill for a while. If you recieved a really bad dose you have hours, if you recieved a moderate dose you will survive but there is a real good chance of developing blood cancers and other cancers, especially those of the thyroid (because of the iodine 131). Those will kill you within a few years. If you recieved a light dose you have little to fear unless you are unlucky. In other words, those with light doses of radiation (even ionizing) run the same risks as those of the general population to develop cancers.

Ms. Darby's conclusion tries to equalize an unnatural introduction of radioactive materials with "natural" exposure over a period of time. I don't quite get what she deems "unlucky"...but as the other material I showed gives an example of a lot of "unlucky" people who didn't quite fall into Ms. Darby's slot.

None of what you posted negates what I have laid out above. AND VISA VERSA Ionizing radiation is the killer. The only way you can get any sort of health issues from Strontium or Cesium is if you ingest them. Then you get to die. On the other hand if you take simple precautions those radioactive isotopes can't hurt you. They primarily emit alpha and beta particles that can be stopped by a sheet of paper. You can wash off the radiation with no deleterious effects.
Do you want to sleep in a area contaminated with them? No, of course not...that would be classified as stupid now wouldn't it.

You keep propping up these perfect scenarios. Unfortunately what is happening in the real world doesn't always fit one's expectations. Ground water and soil contamination affects the entire eco-system, and the food chain eventual gets to YOU. The cumulative effect...especially if certain types of radioactive contaminants are released and quickly rained into the ground/lake/river/ocean.

The primary defense mode of the nuke power industry is that if people are not immediately maimed, poisoned or killed by a plant accident, then it's all negligible and can be handled. THAT fallacy is based upon denial of spikes in cancers and birth defects within in the radius of the accident during the coming years as being related. I've always asked the question that would folk repeat the ideology that you do here were suddenly faced with cancer after being in the vicinity of a plant cited for leaks, emissions or an accident. To date, I haven't gotten a straight answer.