Well if there is no data to support a decision then only a fool would expose themselves to the risk of developing cancer. Since it is not possible to examine all the food produced there, there is an actual risk of ingesting radioisotopes. That means there is an actual risk of developing cancer from eating it.

There are two key input facts. 1) Bio-accumulation or radioisotopes occur. 2) The Fukushima plants released radioisotopes. So to properly asses the risk of eating Fukushima food you would need to use a geiger counter over the meal so that you could assume responsibility for the risk for yourself and fully understand the risk.

It would be foolish to say that there is no risk, when there is one. So for most people it is just simpler to not expose themselves to that risk.

Well that is a really bad comparison because by not immunizing a person they are exposed to a risk, i.e. you are taking a risk by not immunizing (plus you are risking others).

By not eating Fukushima food you are not exposing yourself to a risk of ingesting radioisotopes.

Alternatively, it is being cautious. Now you believe it is fine and prepared to take the risk so go ahead and eat it, you believe that every bit of food will be checked and every part will be ok, so go ahead and take the risk, the odds are in your favour and you'll probably be ok.

However bio-accumulation and radio-analogues are not FUD. Ingest them and you will get a cancer if the odds aren't in your favour.

Your whole point is like telling someone to put their balls on a table and hand you a knife. If you want to take the risk, you put your balls on the table.

Apparently they will be teaching children about Linux and the virtues of open source.

From the photos it looks like the mountains have pushed up through the ice. I wonder if that is how the 'Moated Mountain" formed, nitrogen ice eroding the geology.

I have to say this is an appropriate use of the word 'amazing' - Thank you NASA (and the American taxpayer)

I don't know the math to calculate if you could see any other planets, I don't think so, however I can imagine that it would be the blackest night in our solar system.

Even the most cursory research will show you that the nuclear industry has significant CFC *greenhouse* gas emissions used in the enrichment process. Dig a little deeper and you will find the US enrichment is driven my coal generating facilities.

The failure to tolerate the most straight forward introspection shows that the nuclear fanbois out there do more damage to the Nuclear Industry than anyone, preventing any significant progress to the industry. No facts, no reason, no argument - every single time.

That's hilarious. Like any corporation the Nuclear industry charter is profitability, safety is a cost and Nuclear safety is very expensive indeed.

It is not an article, it is the peer reviewed science that was used by the European Parliament and other credible bodies. This is what scientific research on the Nuclear Industry found.

*IF* it was able to extract the potential energy there instead of the 0.3% that reactor technology can extract.

And what do you offer to back up the claim that the actual science is bogus? FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report. Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics

Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich

UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University

If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.

*IF* a nuclear power plant would operate at 100% of its nominal capacity during a full year without interruptions, which they don't. AND *IF* the ore grades mean the energetic input costs are low, which they aren't.

If you actually intend to have a serious discussion, instead of cherry picking lines from the report to make a point why don't you try honestly evaluating what is there? The "Aprs nous le dluge" attitude, that is what I'm on about.

I'll refer you to chapter 16 on "Energy Debt"

After closedown of a nuclear power plants a massive energy debt is left to society, increasing over time due to the unavoidable deterioration of the temporary storage facilities and increasing leaks.

You will find that statement is in context.

The polarization of this debate makes it difficult to discuss even the most benign criticism of the Nuclear industry. No doubt I'll be modded down for that however if the Nuclear industry wasn't so fragile perhaps it could tolerate the criticism and overcome many of the issues it has.

The peer reviewed science shows that Nuclear power provides no net energetic return and is not viable in its current form. Perhaps France has identified that and the vote will identify how well understood that is, unfortunately the political cycle is a lot shorter than the long range planning and oversight the Nuclear Industry requires.

The Nuclear industry has serious structural issues and the only way they can be solved is by looking at the facts in a realistic, analytic and pragmatic way. I welcome facts and a debate on this free of the general dogmatic skepticism and ad-hom attacks from nuclear fanbois, after all I am trying to learn as much as I can like any normal person about this important and complex subject.

I am not anti nuclear, I am Responsible Nuclear which is different from being pro or anti nuclear. Please understand the difference in that perspective before you test my radiation suit.

You would have to be nuts to pick a fight with one of them, sometimes not concerned with people either.

Someone had to show you guys how to surf ocean waves

It looks like the mountains are pushing up through the ice, I wonder if that is what produces the 'moated mountain' effect?