So two failures of reactors built in the 1970s out of more than 400 operating safely is reason to end all future construction of nuclear power plants?
A trillion times over, yes. Any more silly questions? A new nuclear plant started tomorrow sill have the same fundamental risks of one built in the 1960's, moreso as they age.
You forgot to cite a source on this bullshit statistic.
You forgot the last time you called bullshit you got owned. Unlike nuke cultists I don't make shit up.
Waste from nuclear power is a solved problem.
You mean like reprocessing which is only useful for a handful of tasks? When your ballyhooed France buries the vast majority of their waste because it's cheaper to mine new uranium? That's what's really killing your radioactive water heaters: cost. Not environmentalists, not leftists, not NIMBY's. Cost.
That's a bold statement in the comment section of an article on how the World Bank has decided to fund nuclear power projects. If it were so clear that wind and solar could meet the energy needs of humans around the world then it would seem odd for any bank to make an announcement that they were willing to invest in nuclear power projects.
The WB is a million megatons of corrupt capitalist BS crammed into a five pound sack. It's not complicated.
As if "forever chemicals" are a unique concern to nuclear power. You do understand that solar PV panels contain lots of toxic chemicals, why no concern about that?
Because again, they wont be forever concentrated toxic heavy metals. Again, any more silly questions?
It appears to me that the isotopes used for medicine are quite short lived, meaning they need to be constantly replaced to remain available for people.
Then ask Iran as they are nationally dedicated to their civilian nuclear energy program.