Fester,

No, I'm not a liar. I simply didn't say what you claimed I had said (which is presumably why you don't quote me either.)

Yes, I would like you to link me to my alleged dishonesty. Quote's would help, too.

//Now, are you going to own up to claiming that radiation emissions from a normally operating nuclear power plant slowly poisoned people living in the vicinity...//

When you can quote where I said this, yes.

John,

from https://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028&page=0#395891

From your comment:

"Nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time."

I responded:

"Where has this happened? Complete BS."

From your reply:

"Yes, nuclear power plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time. Cumulative radiation exposure, even at low levels, can increase health risks, particularly cancer and leukaemia, as indicated by studies like the KiKK study in Germany"

All I can conclude from this is that you are either a liar else you are using AI generated responses which you haven't bothered to read. As for the KIKK study, the leukemia cluster was extensively studied and no causative link to radiation from nuclear power plants was found, e.g.:

"When drawing conclusions about the health effects of radiation, it is important to consider all the evidence. Thus any claims of a link between childhood leukemia and radiation from nuclear power plants are unfounded and not supported by a wealth of evidence resulting from multiple epidemiology studies."

https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/perspectives-on-nuclear-issues/the-kikk-study-explained-fact-sheet/

Fester,

Thanks for that. You’ll notice that what you were claiming I said was a misrepresentation of what I had actually said.

You've been distorting my words to exaggerate my statement by claiming I had said that living near a nuclear power plant would "slowly poison" people. My words were far more measured that that. To paraphrase, nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, and cumulative exposure to this radiation could increase health risks over time.

Apparently noticing this yourself, you are now focusing on my mentioning of the KiKK study. What you have failed to notice, though, is that I didn’t rely on it exclusively. I had also mentioned radiation exposure from radioactive materials, the potential for this to enter the food chain, and the effects of this over time.

The KiKK study was only mentioned to show that there is research suggesting a link between nuclear power plants and increased health risks.

My approach was far more cautious than what you have been portraying it to be.

On a broader note, that was just one of 17 reasons I listed as why nuclear energy is bad for the environment. Even if you removed that, my point there would still have remained, but you completely missed this in your ‘cherry-picking-on’ of just one of my points. Worse still, you’re still going on about it to make it look like everything else I have said should therefore be brought into question because of that.

This is both desperate and dishonest.

Note there are small amounts of rdiation from coal fired power
stations also, although I do not know what are the relationships.

John,

You said,

"nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, and cumulative exposure to this radiation could increase health risks over time."

So you do believe in pseudoscience. There is no evidence to support your claim that people come to harm from nuclear power plants during normal operations. The kikk study you mentioned, linking leukemia with proximity to a nuclear power station, was not supported by numerous followup studies. Further, your other claims of possible harm are vague and have no evidential support either. The amount of radiation that people might receive is incredibly small, perhaps a day of background radiation from living next to a nuclear power plant for ten years, so it is little wonder that there is no indication of harm from them.

Nuclear power is safer than all other forms of power generation. On a death rate basis, nuclear has a mortality rate of 0.03 deaths per terawatt hour of generation, midway between solar (0.02) and wind (0.04). Because solar and wind require firming from other energy generation (biomass (4.6 deaths per terawatt hour generation), natural gas (2.8 deaths per terawatt hour generation), hydro (1.3 deaths per terawatt hour generation), a system using them could easily have a death rate tens of times higher than nuclear.

"Nuclear energy, because of the sheer volume of electricity generated and low amount of associated deaths, is one of the world’s safest energy sources, despite common perceptions."

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/

Fester,

No, I still don’t believe in pseudoscience. I just finished explaining why, too.

Why are you still focusing on that KiKK study? Let’s both agree that it’s been thoroughly discredited. So what? It makes no difference to what I said.

I’ve already addressed your claim that nuclear has resulted in less deaths than wind and solar in a previous discussion. Are we going to go through it again?

Fine.

Here’s what your figures don’t account for:

-Falls from rooftops installing solar panels and falls from wind turbines are occupational hazards, not inherent dangers of renewable energy itself.

-Renewable energy sources like solar and wind generate less electricity per unit compared to nuclear.

-Nuclear energy's long-term risks are harder to quantify and aren’t counted in the immediate death statistics.

-The death rates for renewables may include fatalities from the entire supply chain (e.g. mining, manufacturing) leading to an exaggerated comparison.

-The potential under-reporting of nuclear’s long-term health effects.

By the way, I still listed 16 other hazards of nuclear power that you haven’t addressed. Providing dodgy figures and clinging on for dear life to the 17th doesn’t negate them.