> Declaring a bunch of people to be "anti-human" because you don't agree with them is insulting.

They are in fact 'anti-human' go back and read the early environmentalist thinking. They are literally saying we should't give aid to starving people in India/China because they believe the environment would suffer from that.

Its a deeply anti-humanist and anti-science movement.

> 1) Weapons proliferation.

First of all, the waste majority of population happens in country that already have either nuclear weapons or civilian power plants so its not all that relevant for climate change.

Second of all, civilian nuclear power has often turned out to be a good thing for anti-proliferation.

Your point about Iran being a perfect example, Iran wanted to buy a nuclear reactor from France and France would have done all the processing of the fuel. However the US in a shortsighted and idiotic move stopped this, and only then the Iranians started to develop the technical capability for the fuel cycle.

Third, no country primarily derives its nuclear weapons program from civilian reactors, that is more theory then reality.

> 2) Huge scale and persistence of accidents. Chernobyl affected agriculture in the whole of Western Europe, and took decades for an adequate final containment to be built. Bhopal was bad - and possibly worse in effects! - but at least the area isn't a permanent wasteland.

You are just spreading more of those wrong lies. Nuclear power has been both the safest and the lowest land use source of energy for a very long time.

People die of accidents in coal, gas and wind all the time. More people died in a single coal mine accident then in ALL nuclear accidents in human history combined.

For the most part these wastelands are just governments, driven by totally false scientific analysis blocking of way more land then needed.

Again, this is regulation based on scientifically invalid correlation between the effect of radiation and cancer. The science on this is long accepted.

> 3) Waste disposal. A forever problem. I'm old enough to remember Greenpeace fighting it being dumped at sea, but the problem of where we put it remains.

Again, this is very early things that were done wrong, but that is no argument for today. Also, most of this waste is from weapons production (including what they threw in the sea). In fact nuclear civilian power had to pay a fee to the government for storage, this fee has been payed an the government is sitting on billions of payed fees.

This money, every experts agrees, is enough to build a facility. The problem is political, because again, of pretty insane regulation that came out of the political battle over Yucca Mountain (a political choice in the first place).

Even without a 'final solution' its a far smaller problem then many people make it out to be. Nobody has ever died from nuclear fuel, and nobody will for 1000s of years, even if we don't put it into long terms storage.

I'm mostly against a 'final solution' for much of the material we already because it is literally full of energy. This is another one of these insane illogical things, modern reactors could eat up the waste majority of that stuff and give us green energy for a 100 years but of course development of such technology has been opposed every step on ever level.

I have heard the argument 'that would only lead to more people wanting nuclear', making it clear that the waste is just an excuse to block and oppose nuclear power on every turn.

> 4) Cost overruns. A systematic problem in the industry. Doesn't affect renewables to anything like the same extent.

The Cost overrun happens because in the last 30 years only 1-2 reactors have been built. Insane regulation, lost knowledge and production capacity have made it almost impossible to get any kind of scale back.

This is perfectly evident everywhere that deploy nuclear at a larger scale, the US in the early days, France, Korea and China. Its always cheap and a incredibly good long term investment because these reactors will last longer then pretty much all the other things you could build.

When we are talking about solving climate change, so we need something that scales and can produce a lot of power.

Any single renewables program will have less overruns, but that is irrelevant when you are talking about a whole global system. If you compare the estimated cost of transforming everything, nuclear is clearly better.

No need for much grid change for example, just replace every coal plant with a nuclear plants. Uses existing infrastructure, its simple.

> 5) The meta-point: systematic lying about the effects of all of the above. That this happens to overlap with the era of discovering that all sorts of previous advances (CFCs, tetraethyl lead, DDT, asbestos) had nasty side-effects which were also lied about or minimised is not a coincidence. Nuclear advocates take the arrogant position that they don't need to win trust.

Ok, lets look at some issues of trust.

Frist, many of the things above are agree on by pretty much anybody with education of the subject. Meaning nuclear should have educational trust.

This is however undermined because there are 100x more liberal arts (and co) anti-nuclear leftists.

Second, the nuclear industry has operated very well, both in the US and globally, with security better then pretty much any other industry in the world.

However, the lies about it being unsafe persists.

So experts agree, data agrees but you still put the burden on the nuclear advocates to show credibility, while people like Greenpeace have lied and deliberately mislead and misrepresented nuclear energy to the public.

How about the critics show some integrity for once and lets stop taking organisations as being good, just because they claim to be 'environmentalist' when infact their policies are helping to destroy the environment and the people.

Look at Germany, the amount of people that will die there from the use of coal is very high. Guess what, Greenpeace and co have fought with everything to shut down all nuclear plants when it was clearly predictable that this would lead to massively more coal production.

So its my believe that anti-nuclear people should actually answer some of those issues and do it with credibility. Nuclear is safer, it is cleaner, its more land efficient, more reliable, more long lasting and it has FAR greater chance of further advances (its 60s tech for the most part).

This battle against nuclear is not only hurting us here, but also space exploration. Our current way of doing space exploration with as little nuclear energy as possible its an downright embracing state of affairs for a technological society.