France hits hydrogen jackpot: World's largest reserve valued $92 billion found

[NNadir]

9. Whenever I hear someone whining about so called "nuclear waste," I am inspired to ask them to show, using...

...reputable scientific references that the storage of valuable used nuclear fuel over the 70 year history of commercial nuclear energy has killed as many people as fossil fuel waste, aka air pollution will kill in the next twelve hours.

The selective attention to so called "nuclear waste" - a bit of propaganda as stupid as claiming the orange mold in the White House will make American great again - as opposed to the very real issue of fossil fuel waste is not merely ignorant, it is morally repugnant, since it is ignorance that kills people

The number of people killed each day from fossil fuel waste - and note that I'm not even referring to the extreme global heating that dangerous fossil fuel waste is clearly causing can be found in a highly cited paper in the primary scientific literature showing the risk associated with all forms of risk, including energy risk. I cite it often:

It is here: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).

At roughly 7 million deaths per year from air pollution, this works out to around 19,000 people per day.

Whenever I ask a tiresome fool whining about so called "nuclear waste" to show, again, that the 70 year history of containing used nuclear fuels has resulted in 19,000 deaths, they change the subject, mumble or change the subject, because the storage of valuable used nuclear fuels is extremely safe. In a world where people appreciated science rather than the bullshit out of weak minded journalists - I often joke that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better - this would not be an issue.

I am, I claim, an expert on the chemistry and value of used nuclear fuels. I built this expertise in the primary scientific literature, not the lazy sloganeering of barely literate antinukes. I don't believe in the concept of "waste," but rather enjoy the privilege of understanding use, which is analogous to unperturbed biological systems, where all components of the system represent a closed cycle.

Have a nice day. I hope you're not killed by a scary errant beta particle from a tritium atom Fukushima that all of the antinuclear airheads like to whine about while they ignore the consequences of fossil fuels, about which they couldn't care less.