#god i hate discoursing. people should stop posting disinfo

[metastablephysicist]

sorry for nitpicking, but i am annoyed. this is a bit disingenuous with the info about nuclear, particularly the linked article about a spill in the mojave in the late 90s. the spill came from a lanthanide mine, that is, they're not mining for nuclear fuels. mining operations unrelated to nuclear fuel can result in material with higher-than-background radioactivity (see also fracking). the spill also involved large amounts of toxic chemicals that aren't going to decay away. mine tailings etc are commonly stored in rural areas and their mismanagement tends to impact marginalized communities. this is a problem with mining in general, not nuclear power specifically.

on the other hand, the article specifically about uranium mining in the middle part of the 20th century and its impact on the navajo nation (& oglala lakota in south dakota). yeah it's bad. it shouldn't have happened this way. this is the one solid point against nuclear, imo.

the other article is about hazardous waste in general, briefly touching on the navajo nation case. it also mentions yucca mountain, a proposed high level radioactive waste repository just west of the nevada test site. it was never opened due to local opposition in nevada. because of the project being defunded, high level waste from reactors is currently stored indefinitely in dry casks (safe for many decades). the lack of a hlw repository has slowed cleanup efforts at hanford and other sites. there are no current plans for an alternative site in the usa; wipp is not meant for hlw storage. i guess we hope and try for the recycling of spent fuels in the meantime? imo, this could have been resolved if local communities such as the shoshone had been directly involved from the projects inception, been given veto power, provided funds to independently verify the safety of the facility, etc. but i suppose i'm getting off topic.

anyways YES nuclear has risks and environmental impacts, most of these are during the mining & processing parts of the fuel cycle. this is not unique to nuclear power, any mining operation deals with toxic materials and historically has dealt with them very poorly (i've lived in appalachia and seen it firsthand). there ARE ways to mitigate environmental impact and risk.

i believe that the magnitude of risk/harm that nuclear power can have and has had is outweighed by its benefits, especially when comparing to current methods of power generation. it is the best route we currently have for replacing fossil fuels. "clean" energy like solar is much more difficult to scale up, and mitigating climate change is kind of an urgent issue. i think we can agree on that.

The Joshua tree is on its way to extinction because so-called green energy companies want to keep the death machine of civilization going by installing large swaths of solar panels over the desert floor, a big metal blanket that will kill everything it covers: the desert tortoise, the sage grouse, the hawks and snakes and beautiful flowers that have flourished for thousands of years. Gone. Gone.

All so that we can keep the dead heart in the rotting corpse of industrial civilization beating into the next decade. These are the "good guys" btw, these are the "renewable" "carbon neutral" options: covering the desert in miles of metal and microchips until every living being without a bank account is dead.