I believe you keep thinking I'm supporting coal when I'm not. Nuclear power remains a problem due to the length of the half-life of some types. The French do not 100% re-use radioactive material- it becomes spent. It then must be re-activated or discarded. Unless you are willing to admit to the VERY LARGE problem of nuclear waste- you are wasting any chance to promote your side of the issue.

You thought you were being clever using half-life in discussing mercury- and I told you with the very next post that I thought that was an error- but guess what? Coming from public health as an environmentalist I know that the term is used for mercury in the body. i.e. check out this link [www.mercurylife.com]
link [www.urmc.rochester.edu]
link [www.mercola.com]
link [www.ehponline.org]
I won't bore you with th numerous pages of this dead horse.

Also: No link or signifance with terrorism?
link [www.tmia.com]
link [www.nci.org]
link [www.ohiocitizen.org]

I'm quite sure that Iran would agree with you on that matter.

So what was this about someone who thinks they know something?

*slams head on wall*

Nuclear power in the US has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power in Iran or nuclear terrorism.

Nothing.

And the term "half-life" is used in all sorts of contexts. However, we were specifically talking about isotope half-lives. You were - and are - bemoaning the lengthy half-lives of nuclear waste, but steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that the half-life of environmental pollutants from fossil fuel burning is infinite.

You're completely, completely missing the point because you seem to be so hung up on defending your own misunderstandings of the science.

The bottom line:

Fossil fuel burning power plants release tons and tons of real toxic waste with infinite half-lives into the environment every year. Nuclear power plants produce - and safely store away - relatively small amounts of toxic waste with limited half lives. Yes, the half lives are big numbers, but they're less than infinity. And the waste is safely stored, not pumped into the air and groundwater!

We need to practice conservation methods and fund alternative energies at more than a fraction we do the big polluters.
Sharing that technology with the rest of the world will make this globe a safer place for all.
I do not see that happening anytime soon (if ever) as those in power with power will not allow it to happen.

Some radioactive wase from nuclear power stations does enter the enviroment and is dumped, or pumped, into the Irish Sea. It is labeled low level waste but there's lots of it. Nevertheless I support the Nuclear Option, especially the Fast Breeders like those used by the French. These reuse fuel so minimise waste. I admidt to be just a concerned person, not an expert.
Last Sundays Countryfile shower a tidal turbine in Northern Ireland. It was like a wind turbine but under water. Tydal flow is more reliable than wind. As there is no damb involved sea life can swim by safetly. This happens when the tydal flow is minimum so the turbine winched out of the water. It seems an ideal system.
However we do need some base load generating stations so for now we need both coal and nuclear. Waste mamagement needs to be improved for both.
I was not awair of the mercury problem. Is all coal equally contaminated?
Plus in parallel with power generation we need more energy efficient homes and equiptment. This is being done but too slowly.

All coal is not equal. Quality differs.

yeah..because they think that nuclear power
plants are very hazardous. and its very risky to build such projects because they assume that they have no people to rely on and this might cause a tragic accident! just like what happen to other country who made the the same thing..building nuclear power plant!