No change there - you've ignored almost everything posted by almost everyone.
Your most recent post reached new heights of ignoring things, though. You ignored the difference between the Soviet Union, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Other things you've ignored are:
The difference between fission and fusion.
The difference between a power station and an unregulated dump site for the early Soviet nuclear weapons program (which they didn't even understand properly since it was partially based on stolen partial information).
The differences between a 1950s design for a fission power station and a modern design for one.
The difference between 2 (the actual number of catastrophic failures of nuclear power stations) and an unspecified large number.
The difference between a false appeal to authority and legitimate references to authority.
Probably some more, but I don't care enough to reread your posts.
Although I think the most important thing being widely ignored is the limits of the choices we have:
i) Use some fission power along with renewables.
ii) Continue to burn fossil fuels and biomass along with renewables.
iii) The end of modern civilisation, the death of billions of people and huge environmental damage.
Not great choices, but that's what we've got to work with. There are potential solutions that would be better, but none of them exist yet so we can't use them. We don't know when they'll exist. Or if they'll exist.
I'd go for (i) and R&D for as many of those potential solutions as possible so we can get at least 1 of them working as soon as possible. I don't care if it's fusion, some form of mass energy storage with enough capacity, a global energy grid, dilithium crystals, whatever. Anything that works.
Since I'm not ignoring your posts, I'll also reply to your command to buy and read a book just because you told me to. No. I don't always follow book club recommendations and I'm not even in your book club.
I went looking for details on the nuclear power station in Whitehall that you said almost had a catastrophic failure. I couldn't find anything at all. Can you give me some more details? A link would be nice, but even a date would help. Or a country. Or anything.
As for the death toll of Chernobyl, there is legitimate scope for uncertainty about it because it depends on what statistical modelling you choose. In most cases it's impossible to be sure of the degree of possibility that an illness was or wasn't caused by Chernobyl. But even the highest estimate is less than half of the death toll of the worst hydroelectric power station failure (and there have been far more dam failures than nuclear power station failures) but that hasn't resulted in the same degree of anti-hydroelectric sentiment.
im choosing to ignore it because i dont want to get dragged into a bloody debate over nuclear, i have my opinion and you have yours, were not going to change each others by arguing over the internet are we? sometimes its better just to let things go but since your insisting a reply to what seems like win an internet discussion il bite.
1. fision and fusion i fully appreciate are different things, tell me something are they not maintained by fallible people? if modern designs cant generally have accidents then great but we wont know how true that is until soemthing does or potentially happens will we.
2. not sure where you have got that from i think maybe you were talking to someone else about that, I've not mentioned anything to do with unregulated waste sites
3. no design has ever been 100% bullet proof has it? just because we haven't had a modern accident recently doesn't mean it CANT happen, see end of point 1.
3. it was a rough estimate from memory, i also never said anything about catastrophic, i insinuated accident and then went on in other posts to say how they can be catastrophic in less uncertain terms.
4. ive given you a legitimate reference, its your choice if you want to read it or not.
5 the choice as you call it, you seem to be coming at this from an angle where you seem to think I'm anti nuclear, again you are wrong and making an assumption. im not against doing nuclear correctly with correct processes and backup procedures in place designed to stop people from making mistakes.
6. command? its your choice to do it or not there is no command, but you asked for material and ive pointed you to it, you just dont like the fact that you have to go do some actual reading from a book rather than have google do the work for you.
7.back to the root of the problem all the other bs aside, that's the point isn't it, we don't truly know one way or the other, but you've said only 30 people died and stated what google and the un and who or whatever have told you and they are based on factual ground evidence collected during the event?
the anti nuclear point again im not anti nuclear, you've made that assumption based on me saying accidents can and will happen and that those accidents can have catastrophic consequences does that mean we dont need a solution no absolutely not but we sure dont need a bad solution do we?
and with that lets agree to disagree shall we.
in reference to where i said whitehall, sorry i meant windscale.. and it wasnt a catosropic failure, but from memory 20 seconds from becoming one.
