Green house gas emissions ETC. Consider that most of the "reduction will have to come from our power generating system. Most of which are CO2 coal producing power plants. If we ares serious about CO2 reduction we must VERY seriously consider building neuclear power plants FAST. Over a hundred maybe?
But we have a problem. Congress says NO to nuclear and even coal. So Calidfornia buys its power from other states.
We have a problem. And Congress is it! Senators Feinstein and Boxer, Rep Pelosi, Senator Reid. All RICH and able to afford the future price hike in power consumption we, the public must absorb.
A suggestion! Do what France is doing. It derives 80%+_ of its power from atomic power plants. It sells its excess to Holland and Germnay

I believe most savings from greenhouse gasses will be with changes in fuels, modifications and beter economy being the easist to accomplish. Nukes are not a good idea based on security and safety. There just is no really good place to put poisons with half-lives longer than man has been on this planet and the concerns for the waste making it into someone's weapon or dirty bomb.

They are quite different problems. I looked up Mercury- one source said 15-30 years IN the body.
Lead 10 months - although my training said if it is in the bone- it's there for good.

Radioactive materials can have half-lives of split seconds and some that are in the thousands of years.

Those aren't half-lives.

The point is that just because there is radioactive waste material doesn't automatically make it worse.

Yes, a hunk of Pu-239 will remain dangerous for thousands of years because it has a long half life.

But mercury? The half life of elemental mercury is infinite. Mercury as a waste product will continue to be hazardous to humans forever.

You're worried about the nuclear waste because it's radioactive? Well that stuff is stored in sealed containers and presents zero danger to humans unless it's somehow released.

Coal power plants release tons of pure mercury right into the air and water every goddamn year. They're not bottling that s*** up - it's coming right out of the smokestacks, and ends up in our water supplies, in the fish we eat, in the trees, in the grass, in the ground, everywhere.

Yes, nuclear waste sounds scary. But compared to the real dangerous substances that fossil-fuel plants pump directly into our environment every day, nuclear waste is irrelevant.

It is not irrevelant. And half-life was what you requested and was googled (you CAN do that your-self you know).
Which is why I stated they were different. Contained mercury i.e. thermometer is the same thing as sealed containers. Guess what- it don't stay sealed.
You refuted your own point and made mine- a thank you very much.
And you did not even dare to venture into the weapons end of your problems.

Smoke and mirrors!
First off- I think that coal fired plants should also be phazed out. They do pollute terribly. Mercury is problematic as an element and as a pollutant. Radioactive waste can be more so. Some types can be blocked by a piece of paper- but the same particle when inhaled will cause cancer in the lung. Depends, mixing apples nd oranges is not a good idea when trying to make a one size fits all comparison.
Half lives can be nano-seconds or billions of years. That's can be pretty much for ever- don't ya think?
And yet again- you fail to mention terrorism. It's possibilty looms everywhere with your energy choice.

OK, coal plants should be phased out.

And replaced with... what?

You say mercury is "problematic" then say radioactive waste "can be more so." Are you considering the fact that mercury is released directly into the environment by the ton and nuclear waste.. isn't?

I'm trying to make you understand that just because something is radioactive doesn't automatically make it worse than stuff that isn't. You still don't seem to get that mercury and lead - both toxic pollutants released directly into the environment by fossil-fuel power plants - have half lives even longer than any radioactive substance created by a nuclear plant and then stored away in sealed containers.

And coal waste has tons of radioactive isotopes in it! Coal plants emit hundreds of times more radioactive waste than nuclear plants!

You keep bringing up terrorism, but that's completely irrelevant. Nuclear plants vs coal plants has nothing whatsoever to do with weapons or terrorism.

I'm going to bed. I don't see any way I could help you more fully understand the science involved. I suck as a teacher.

People would do well to read Jonnythan's posts with care and patience because he understands about that which he speaks (posts? writes?). I know that because I've been reading his posts for more than a year, and I don't remember anything about which he got the facts wrong. On the other hand, his manner reminds me of David Rumsfeld, the arrogant Secretary of Defense, in the W Bush Administration who seemed to delight in catching people in their ignorance. Asking about the half life of mercury seems a bit rude because the mercury in coal is not radioactive and therefore has no half-life. On the other hand, it is a clever way of comparing the nuclear reactors' spent fuel, which in not really a pollutant because it doesn't get into the environment, with the mercury in coal, which is a pollutant because it is allowed to get into the environment.

I don't delight in catching people in their ignorance. I do delight in catching people who try to insist they know a lot more than they do in their ignorance