You are talking about some hypothetical potential. But all of those other areas I mentioned have an actual death toll that far exceeds that from nuclear power, by orders of magnitude, and that’s even including Chernobyl, which was a reckless, unstable, uncontained, cheap, massive, Soviet design that nobody is advocating. And just as that was a design which was much worse than today’s commercial nuclear reactors, other designs could be much better. The hypothetical worst case scenarios for molten salt reactors would represent virtually no risk beyond the plant boundaries.
“You also seem to be suggesting that the same insanities by military and government decisions which “quashed research in the direction of safer reactors which would have prevented something like Fukushima” won’t be as insane in future?”
That research has mostly passed from government control in the U.S. The advanced reactor research is primarily taking place in the private sector now. And the research is focusing on optimizing the reactors for civilian applications. These will be very different from the military reactors that our current fleet was based on. And since the research is taking place mostly outside of government labs, that means that it does not depend on serving government dictates. Government could facilitate the research, but it’s not going to decide its direction. These reactors are going to have to compete on their merits, and they are being designed with that in mind.
“Our government/MIC/CIA are only more insane than they were when the first decisions were made to use nuclear power to boil water –”
You seem to be fixated on the notion that boiling water is somehow insane. What is it that you imagine is so evil or dangerous about boiling water that one would have to be insane to even consider it?
“First I don’t think California would be any happier with your throwing more radiated water/
waste into the Pacific to reach them”
The amount of tritium in seawater–mostly from bombs–used to be ten times what it is now, and nobody has ever found that it caused a problem for any life even at its peak. It has a very weak radiation profile, basically kicking out a neutrino (totally harmless) and a low-energy electron–about as damaging as static electricity. The residual bomb tritium remaining in the Pacific is still disappearing at a rate that would far exceed the rate of any controlled release from Fukushima. The net effect on California would be a small slowing in the rate of tritium disappearance such that the levels that would have been reached on a given day would instead be reached a few days later. And that’s with dumping the entire load of water in storage at Fukushima, which really wouldn’t be necessary just to free up a few years worth of storage.
“– and everything in between by marine life which is developing a nasty habit of washing up dead –”
All marine organisms die, and some of them wash up dead. That is how it has been for as long as there has been life in the oceans. But none of that has anything to do with Fukushima. No marine biologist has attributed or connected any West Coast marine death or disease event in any species to Fukushima contaminant radiation.
“And, this is the very thing they’ve been trying to prevent for the sake of us all – i.e., dumping it into the ocean and you not only call it “sensible” …”
Not just me. Most radiation experts have the same view.
“you follow up with an option to pollute Antarctica –”
Yeah, with ice. What harm do you imagine that could possibly do? The boat trip taking it down there would be the worst, most polluting, most life-damaging part of that plan, which is to say it would do nothing worse than what any of the thousands of other ships in the oceans are already doing every day.
"And, evidently, the government nor the owners of the nuclear reactor haven’t thought of this next one…
[Once the leaks are plugged, the pace of work could slow down. There would be nothing time-critical that would need to be dealt with, and working slower would actually give radiation levels more time to subside.]
I’m sure they’ve thought of it, and I expect they know that course would make more sense. The reason they are not considering it is because they have to placate public opinion, even if that opinion is based on ignorance, misconception, and/or sheer emotion. So they will try to turn it into a vacant site as quickly as possible (and do nothing with it afterwards) even if it would be safer, cheaper, and cleaner to work slower.
“And, I’m sure your suggestions come with the same guarantees our Congress and government gave us in regard to the existing nuclear reactors – NONE”
Guarantees are basically one-sided bets. They are assurances backed with some sort of tangible stake. They don’t actually do anything to change the probabilities they are based on. My suggestions are just based on an evaluation of the probabilities, picking the options that look like they pose the least risk.
“Meanwhile, Global Warming is only now about to reflect back to us in increasing events and increasing severity of events the damage done to Nature AFTER 1969 – and again there is no way to say how all of the harm done will compound in these events. Nor, of course, any way to guess what to prepare for.”
In terms of threats to nuclear reactors, we wouldn’t need to know every possible thing we might have to prepare for if we migrate to reactors which eliminate all the worst possible consequences. We don’t try to ensure that wind turbines cannot be damaged by any possible weather event, because it isn’t a big deal if a wind turbine gets damaged or destroyed, and we know that the aggregate cost of repairing or replacing some windmills occasionally would be trivial compared to the cost of making them all invulnerable. Same deal with minimal-consequence reactors. There would be no need to make, for example, a molten salt reactor impervious to everything that could possibly happen to it, because no matter what happens to it, it wouldn’t have any catastrophic failure modes.