Safe Nuclear energy?

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 62
#31
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@mustardness
- Low pressure coolant reactors are much safer due to lack of possible steam explosions.
- The higher heat reservoir for higher temperature afforded by molten sodium or molten salt mean cooling mechanisms of spraying water on the reactor are less necessary.
- No hydrogen explosions either.
- Many thorium breeding cores can’t be used for proliferation as U233 is a hard gamma emitter.
- The extra plutonium generated is not a problem, it’s what breeders do. Breed new fuel.
- Sodium is more dangerous when exposed to air, but is less problematic than dealing with super high pressure radioactive steam and water at super high temperature.
- Positive void coefficients are only one part of the equation as long as the reactivity of the core as a whole is negative, it’s not a problem. It’s certainly not large enough to be able to cause an uncontrolled steam explosion due to thermal runaway.

I have taken the liberty of bolding the parts of my previous post that you don’t seem to be interested in addressing.

Pressurized water reactors must operate at very high steam pressures and have major issues with hydrogen explosions in emergency scenarios as the zirconium cladding of fuel rods at high temperature  reacts with water.

Sodium is dangerous due to its reactivity - but must of the issues you’ve mentioned about it are untrue, or not really issues: the PVC isn’t an issue when the reactivity of the core is taken as a whole. You don’t need to spray water on the core.

There is limited amount of uranium reserves in the world and despite your claims to the contrary, while the worlds remaining supply is measured at the scale of centuries - this is based on current consumption. Increase and scaling up of generation is necessarily going to drop this down - and as more convenient, and more prevelant nuclear power may get - the more need there is for higher efficiency reactors.

Saying this, I would prefer to see more research into LFTR reactors - they are by far and away the most interesting of the Gen 4 designs.
#32
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Snoopy
I'm curious about your time frame.  How long do you think it will take the people of every country to join the United States?
First off you error in saying United States when you should say United Countries aka United Nations and not United Corporations unless the 1st priorty of those corporations is the longest term sustaining of humans on Earth with the least amount of detriment to the ecological environement that sustains all biologial life on Earth.

2nd the time frame depends on the integrity of every human. It took 1000s of peoples marching in the streets to create environment for civil rights and stop and unnecessary war by USA.

3rd, humans are so dumb { short sided }, greedy and barbaric that historically it took a violent leader and group to unite the disparate groups of barbaric peoples to create a united group, Ex Yugolslavia, or Islam, or civil war in US and civil wars in other countries { China } to unite behind a common good for all.

4th if humans ever get smart then we could be a long term United Nations.  My guess is to do that without violence we will need some catastrohic set of events to unite humanity behind a common goal.  Erratic Climate Change Extreme's could be just such of events headed this way.  I dunno.




#33
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Sodium is dangerous due to its reactivity - but must of the issues you’ve mentioned about it are untrue, or not really issues
Ive given many articles that disagree with your assesment that FBRs are safer than other nukes. I'm not an expert on FBR so I have to consider both sides but in so doing there is obvious historical problems with FBR;'s that have not yet been solve --and will not be solved anyhtime soon--  and if not solved have potential to lead to very severe explosions and the spewing of lots of ionizing radiation, if not specifically radiation from plutonium.  YIKES!

Humans ---except for the French---  are inherently scared of ionizing radiation, and specifically plutonium, for good reasona.  This is a minimal brainer.

Solar, wind and hydrogen inherently do not appear threatening to our basic RNA-DNA coding.  YOu dont seem to grasp that humans are dumb but for the most part their not stupid when it comes to understanding these not so subtle differrence in scale or what is  the word,...uhh, oh yea, DANGEROUS!





#34
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@mustardness
You've given many articles that you’ve either subtly not understood, or haven’t presented in their full context. The truth of the matter is actually much more subtle than is being presented.

FBRs have been running since the 1960s, without any major events - and while they are technically challenging, your portrayal of the issues and safety is inherently flawed and misrepresenting the facts.

People are afraid of ionizing radiation mainly as humans are incapable of apprioriately weighing abstract risks.

Even before the NSC was built, you’d get a higher dose of radiation travelling to Brazil and sitting on the beach at Guarapari than you would standing outside reactor 4 at Chernobyl.

Nuclear power has dangers to it, but the risks are ridiculously overhyped and over stated. Nuclear accidents are just big scary and sexy, so everyone is irrationally frightened of them happening everywhere.


Look at it this way. A nuclear power station was subjected to mag 9 earthquake, was then flooded by a massive Tsunami, it lost all power for several days, lost all cooling, and all ability to manage the shutdown the damaged reactors and suffered 3 hydrogen explosions. The meltdown of three reactors still caused less radiation than a single reactor at Chernobyl: and the total number of actual deaths attributed to radiation at Fukushma is 1 death from lung cancer.

The fear of Nuclear power is absurd and irrational - given that falling out of bed kills more people.



Topic's author
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Ram is correct.

The Cuban missile crisis did more to halt nuclear power than Chernobyl.

The public sees a potential mushroomcloud over every nuclear power plant.
#36
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@Ramshutu

just like Ram and others have said...

how the fear of nuclear power was created by people who had ideological fears or sought to exploit it for political gain




#37
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The public sees a potential mushroomcloud over every nuclear power plant.
1} Only the more simple minded see that, however, that image --tho mostly associated with hydrogen bombs-- a Fast Breeder Reactor may be next in line to creation of such actual phenomena of true ionizing "mushroom cloud" occurring.

2} here is one actual photo of the poorly defined cloud emitted from Fukushima, See LINK, and they go on to say, that,
....'More than 80 per cent of the radiation was deposited in the ocean and poles, so I think the global population got the least exposure.'....
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CHuj34Aen8....this vidieo has a differren slant than the one above....


Who do we trust, nuclear industry data or other?

3} what humans  very briefly saw  visually on tv is that of seemingly perfect expanding hydrogen sphere  emitted over Fukushima reactor when it exploded.  Hard to find slow vidieo of that image
#38
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@mustardness
The Hydrogen explosions at Fukushima were combusting Hydrogen, not fusing Hydrogen in a fusion reaction. The Hydrogen was produced as a reaction between the zirconium cladding of fuel assemblies (poor neutron absorbing material), and steam at high temperatures. Not the same thing at all.

Due to the nature of nuclear reactors - it’s not possible for hydrogen to be created by a Sodium cooled FBR - as there is no water in the core. It is also next to impossible to make a reactor go prompt critical (exponential chain reaction) - by design. 

SL-1 in the 60s went prompt critical - no one is quite sure of Chernobyl did - and thus far there is no indication any other reactor ever has.

even the most catastrophic reactor accidents haven’t killed many people - comparatively speaking. 

Literally more people have died in cars between your post and my post than have died as a result of nuclear power generation.

#39
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Literally more people have died in cars between your post and my post than have died as a result of nuclear power generation.
If we put aside nuclear bombs that USA unnecessarily dropped on Japan, then the above is also true. So does that make having more and more hydrogen bombs floating around in submarines and elsewhere a smart concept for humanities short and long term survival?

Ive already made clear with many references how dumb it is to add more nuclear based sources of energy on Earth with all of the potential hazadous consequences and much ionizing radiation that has is in our enviroement with varying half-lives of years to get eventually be a detriment to any all biological life on Earth.

I'm sorry Ramshutu, I think it is short-sighted to consider nukes other than for medical uses. Once again we already stockpiling nuclear waste on site at my nukes plants because humans have found no safe place to store them for thousands of years. Do you understand the words coming off my keystrokes?

◆ Breeder reactors use highly enriched fuels, which pose the danger of critical accidents. They also work at a very high temperature and a fast pace.

◆ Plutonium persists for a long time in the environment, with a half-life of 24,000 years, and is highly toxic, causing lung cancer even if a small amount is inhaled.

◆ The construction and operation is very costly. Between $4 to $8 billion is required in the construction alone.
◆ The byproducts formed during the fission of plutonium have to be removed by reprocessing, as they slow down the neutrons and reduce efficiency. However, this step of reprocessing produces a very pure strain of plutonium, which is ideal for use in nuclear weapons. This poses a risk, as in, terrorists may attempt to sabotage or steal the plutonium.

◆ Till date, not a single breeder reactor has been economically feasible. Every year, billions of dollars worldwide are spent for the safe storage of the plutonium produced, which is then useless, as few reactors use it as fuel.

◆ In practice, a breeder reactor requires 30 years to produce as much plutonium as it utilizes in its operation.

◆ It requires liquefied sodium or potassium metal as a coolant, as water would slow down the neutrons. These metals can cause a mishap, as they react violently when exposed to water or air.

◆ These reactors are complex to operate. Moreover, even minor malfunctions can cause prolonged shutdowns. Their repair is tedious and expensive too.

◆ Breeder reactors have had several accidents. For example, in the US, the Experimental Breeder Reactor I suffered a meltdown in 1955. Similarly, Reactor Fermi I suffered a partial meltdown in 1966, and was closed down after a series of sodium explosions. Currently, only Russia, China, India, and Japan have operational breeder reactors.

#40
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu

#41
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a hell of a lot safer then what we are doing!




#42
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Nuclear power kills less people then all other forms of electricity except wind.  It doesn't pollute.  Any time it melts down, a new one can be built that's better then previously.  Trial and error.
#43
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
Any time it melts down, a new one can be built that's better then previously
Uh, what?

#44
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
I think you’re talking about wax sculptures; not nuclear reactors.
#45
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
A new one can be built somewhere else.  In the meantime, the area that was destroyed can be bioremediated.
#46
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Alec
Right now, bioremediation technology isn’t sufficient - and mostly only reduces the mobility of radionucleotides (it doesn’t remove them)

35 days later

#47
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Snoopy
.."ZATOs Todayaka Secret Ciites

...Many of the Soviet ZATOs remain closed to this day. Russian citizens have to obtain special permission to visit, while foreigners are strictly forbidden. In 2001, the Russian government acknowledged the existence of 42 closed cities.

...In 1995, the residents of Arzamas-16 petitioned to have its name changed to the historic name which it bears today - Sarov. It remains an attractive city to its residents. One resident, Irina, explained, “There were no universities in my own small town, and the university in Sarov attracted me by the fact it was involved with physics and mathematics, which I was interested in.” Sarov is still a closed city today and is protected by the Russian Army.

...Chelyabinsk-65, which was renamed Ozersk in 1994, is today one of the most polluted places in the world. Some residents refer to it as the “graveyard of the Earth.” Nevertheless, Ozersk is still a prestigious place to live where, as one resident put it, they get “the best of everything for free.” Ozersk also remains closed to the outside world."

..."Dating back to the Soviet era, closed cities, where important strategic facilities were hidden and secured, continue to exist in today's Russia. These cities cannot be entered without a special pass, but tourists occasionally manage to make it inside."

45 days later

#48
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Pro's of nuclear power:

-Cheapest form of energy
-Safest form of energy
-Reduces atomic bomb count
-Cleanest for the environment
-Pro tools are in place to prevent a meltdown.
-Lasts for tens of thousands of years

#49
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
-Cheapest form of energy

False

-Safest form of energy

False

-Reduces atomic bomb count

False

-Cleanest for the environment

False

-Pro tools are in place to prevent a meltdown.

Good luck and Good night Humanity!

-Lasts for tens of thousands of years

Some of its byproducts last even longer. Please educate yourself before expsousing so much falsehoods. Thank you.

#50
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
You should say. It is better than fossil fuels given it won't be as impactful on the climate. 
#51
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ebuc
Are you against nuclear energy?

Do see my #2 comment. 
Basically the second post on this topic. 
Topic's author
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Alec
-Cheapest form of energy

Is natural gas atm.

-Safest form of energy

Is solar.

-Reduces atomic bomb count

Okay.

-Cleanest for the environment

Okay.

-Pro tools are in place to prevent a meltdown.

Okay

-Lasts for tens of thousands of years
Okay.
#53
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you against nuclear energy?
For the most part yes. I guess I had not been clear enough in this thread.

#54
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Nuclear power is safer then solar.
#55
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ebuc
For the most part yes. I guess I had not been clear enough in this thread.

Why?
#56
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why?
Did you not read any of my posts in this thread? For starters

No Nukes is a minimal brainer Just Say No To Nukes is not a rocket science conclusion for those who follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.

1} we have a human population problem for some of the  dangerous systems  ---nukes and coal---  we have in place to supply the energy needs being asked for,

2} parts of humanity are not  being considerate of its actions and dangerous resultants thereof i.e. humanity has yet learned to prioritize what is best for humanity,

3} both 1 and 2 can only be addressed significantly via a unified humanity that does not place financial profit above ecological environment that sustains all biological life on Earth,

4} humans are going butt forward into the future instead mind forward ergo the resultant is a bruising of humanities 'butt' over and over and over again and again and again. Ex over hunting whales,

5} all of the above require a comprehensive wholistic set of considerations, that, could be done independantly with computer modeling just as humans have done with climate modeling, however, the scale and desire{ spirit } to do this has to be driven by a broad base coalition of humans spiritual intent on finding options forward for the longest term survival with the least amount of human suffering,

6} ??? what am I forgeting ?? in all of the above ??







#57
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ebuc
1} we have a human population problem for some of the  dangerous systems  ---nukes and coal---  we have in place to supply the energy needs being asked for,
Prove to me we have an overpopulation problem.
2} parts of humanity are not  being considerate of its actions and dangerous resultants thereof i.e. humanity has yet learned to prioritize what is best for humanity,
This argument can work for guns. Are you for banning them as well?
3} both 1 and 2 can only be addressed significantly via a unified humanity that does not place financial profit above ecological environment that sustains all biological life on Earth,
Nuclear energy is less impactful to the environment yet you are against it. What do you propose people use when we remove fossil fuels?
4} humans are going butt forward into the future instead mind forward ergo the resultant is a bruising of humanities 'butt' over and over and over again and again and again. Ex over hunting whales,
Time moves and we can't stop it. If you are talking about energy advancement. Coal is older than nuclear therefore by using nuclear we are advancing.
5} all of the above require a comprehensive wholistic set of considerations, that, could be done independantly with computer modeling just as humans have done with climate modeling, however, the scale and desire{ spirit } to do this has to be driven by a broad base coalition of humans spiritual intent on finding options forward for the longest term survival with the least amount of human suffering,
I agree which is why I am for nuclear energy if it means it replaces fossil fuels. 
#58
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Prove to me we have an overpopulation problem.
Were you around some years back when headline news was this barge of garbage in ocean that no country included USA could find a place for?
Get real { serious } dude.  Your playing mind games now.

This argument can work for guns. Are you for banning them as well?
First you correct "this argument works" and guns is distracting side issue to this thread and yes humanity has no need of guns except dart guns for tranquilizing wild animals and crazy white nationlist supermacists.

Nuclear energy is less impactful to the environment yet you are against it. What do you propose people use when we remove fossil fuels?
Not in the long run it is not, and nobody really knows the amount of cancers and genetic mutations that have resulted or will result from humans venture into nuclear power to date.  Do you really believe there are not many more nuclear accidents going to occur?  Your really ignorant if dont.

Wind, solar, hydro, hyro-thermal,  natural gas, hydrogen and if we can burn all  the garbage floating around on barges that no country wants without considerable pollutions to atmosphere, lets do it. 

Time moves and we can't stop it. If you are talking about energy advancement. Coal is older than nuclear therefore by using nuclear we are advancing.
Yeah, and when a smart ship Captain realizes his navigational error is going 180 degree in the incorrect direction, they drop their ego and turn to go forward in the correct direction. Duhh! Ego is the greatest danger to humanity.  You dont get that yet.

Mars and nuclear power and nuclear weapons are NOT the priority for a unified humanity that wants the longest days forward with the least amount of human sufferring. Please read my lips/text.

I agree which is why I am for nuclear energy if it means it replaces fossil fuels. 
Ergo you likened to the ship Captain that cannot drop their ego and change course. 

You never answered my question.  Did you not read my posts in this thread? For starters.


#59
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@ebuc
Were you around some years back when headline news was this barge of garbage in ocean that no country included USA could find a place for?
Garbage would eventually get high enough. If less people wasted it wouldn't be a problem. That isn't an overpopulation problem. 
First you correct "this argument works" and guns is distracting side issue to this thread and yes humanity has no need of guns except dart guns for tranquilizing wild animals and crazy white nationlist supermacists.
Oh your a left winger. That argument would work for abortion since a fetus is a life. Are you going to ban abortion?
Not in the long run it is not, and nobody really knows the amount of cancers and genetic mutations that have resulted or will result from humans venture into nuclear power to date.
The research has already been done if you actually read my post #2. You would realize nuclear is safer than before.
Do you really believe there are not many more nuclear accidents going to occur?  Your really ignorant if dont.
Do you know how many coal mining accidents occur? 
Wind, solar, hydro, hyro-thermal,  natural gas, hydrogen and if we can burn all  the garbage floating around on barges that no country wants without considerable pollutions to atmosphere, lets do it.  
Wind not viable for every day.
Hydro requires a ton of water and removing residents from their households near the water since it requires a lot of space to create.
Hydro-thermal is basically extracting volcanoes. Are you telling me nuclear is worse than harvesting from a volcano?
Natural gas basically farts. Are you going to shove a energy storage up a cows backside or something?
Electrolysis requires electricity so you would need another energy source like solar panels generating it to make it happen.
Ego is the greatest danger to humanity.  You dont get that yet.
Nuclear is safer now than in the past. That isn't ego.
Mars and nuclear power and nuclear weapons are NOT the priority for a unified humanity that wants the longest days forward with the least amount of human sufferring. Please read my lips/text. 
"NOT the priority" on what basis?
Humanity won't unify over energy it would have to be ideas.
Ergo you likened to the ship Captain that cannot drop their ego and change course.  
Your ego that unifying humanity requires not using nuclear is more than my lack of ego while stating the facts of nuclear.

Just to make sure what you have just done.
You have not anywhere provided evidence for your claims instead a analogy and some stuff about ego. Can you actually provide evidence or are you incapable of doing so?
#60
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Garbage would eventually get high enough. If less people wasted it wouldn't be a problem. That isn't an overpopulation problem. 
Your confused, dazed, uneducated and in denial of the obvious.

Oh your a left winger. That argument would work for abortion since a fetus is a life. Are you going to ban abortion?
Yeah I am pro-humanity and  guns { weapons } will only lead to humanities  destruction.  This is a  minimal brainer for those who choose to follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.  Why you think I want to "ban abortion" lacks any rational logical common sense.

You like to say off the wall, diversionary, irrelevant stuff.  Bad sign for you intellectual integrity.

The research has already been done if you actually read my post #2. You would realize nuclear is safer than before.
Your living a dazed confused fantasy world brought to you by the energy companies and other profiteers.

Do you know how many coal mining accidents occur?  
Yeah dont answer the question and diverge away because you lack the intellectual integrity abillity to follow rational logical common sense pathways of thought. 

Wind not viable for every day.
You really are confused and uneducated human.

Hydro requires a ton of water and removing residents from their households near the water since it requires a lot of space to create.
Yeah dying from the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation is so much better, You confused dazed, ignorant and refuse to even attempt to follow rational logical common sense pathways of thought.


Hydro-thermal is basically extracting volcanoes. Are you telling me nuclear is worse than harvesting from a volcano?
Natural gas basically farts. Are you going to shove a energy storage up a cows backside or something?
Electrolysis requires electricity so you would need another energy source like solar panels generating it to make it happen.

Nuclear is safer now than in the past. That isn't ego.
Meangingless dribble as nuclear power will never be a safe answer for long term survival of humanity.  You lack the ability to follow rational logical common sense in these regards.

Keep avoiding the question and further show you lack of intellectual integrity.  Do you really think there are not going to be more signifcant ionizing nuclear accidents in the future?  Get real dude.


Humanity won't unify over energy it would have to be ideas.
IS that really the best you have to offer.  Idesa about energy population and all I mentioned previously is priority. Nor Mars nor nuclear power nor nuclear weapons production.  You are not able to attempt any raitonal logical common sense in these regards.

Lunatics, Mar-a-tics and Nuke-a-tics share a common traits, Waste of humanities valuable resouces when much greater priorities are at hand for immediate survival and long tern survival with least amount of surrering.  You dont get it and never will because your ego is in the way.

Ego is a double-edged sword that can offer the  greatest danger to humanity and greatest ideas.

Your ego that unifying humanity requires not using nuclear is more than my lack of ego while stating the facts of nuclear.
Yeah my ego has led me to follow rational, logical common sense on many various topics.  That is not a problem and none of them are invalid for long term survival of humanity.

Nukes are not smart for long term survival of humanity.  Common sense.  Please try it some time.

You have not anywhere provided evidence for your claims instead a analogy and some stuff about ego. Can you actually provide evidence or are you incapable of doing so?
Evidence that nukes are not the best way forward for humanity. You obviously have not read any my original posts in this thread.  I asked you have you did ---for starters-- and you refused to answer. Bad sign for you intellectual integrity. Avoid, diverge deny etc.

There is long list of why nukes is not the saviour for you humanity that you seem to think.  Yo need to go back and read my posts Ive laid out some of the answers to your questions why nukes and nuclear weapons wil make humanity extinct if Irratic Climate Change does not get us first.

Your head is in a hole in the ground listening to the energy companies pull he finincial profiteers wool of over your nose, ears, eyes, and mind.. Sad :--(