None of that is true. N00q plants output tritium. unseen, almost impossible to filter cost effectively.
while technically true it is in very low quantity, i dunno if you know of a gas called radon that is produced in some very populated part of the world naturally and unlike tritium it can decompose into radioactive metal in the lungs and is overall far more radioactive and is produced in much larger quantities
Germany decided to shut down all their reactors upon studying its effects by drawing concentric Rings around power plants, and noticing that Childhood leukemia correlated perfectly with living distance to plant.
given the timing i have doubt about that but officials will need a reason to look better.
In terms of Environmental impact, Nooq Reactors are cleaner than coal while IN the power plant. However the mining / Transport of the nooq fuel ultimately makes n00q power only ~6% cleaner than Coal-Fire. Yet the opportunity cost is huge vs Wind and solar, because we can build capacity much faster. N00qs are notoriously cost over run, and they are Economically NET NEGATIVE.
well true that 1kg of uranium will pollute more to extract and to refine than 1kg of coal, overall your kg of uranium will last 20 to 30 years. while your kg of coal will last all of about 1 minute, and well maybe in the US a company can live of making negative profit but that is not the case everywhere, and either way we need them for their inertia, it is why i said renewable are out of the question at the moment renewable do not have inertia or are very location dependent.
Then there's the Nooqular waste, NO TECHNOLOGY exists to Deal with this.
well we do have technologies just cost more than making big holes to bury it
Nooq plants are also Economically net negative. They produce the most-expensive electricity of all known power sources, Ontop of a waste product which COSTS money indefinitely to oversight and store. Contrary to popular belief, burying nooq waste is NOT a good solution If there is ever a leak/ earth quake etc, you immediately end up with massive unusable land that is nearly permanently contaminated ~300,000 years.
Nuclear power is not net negative outside of the US i dunno about the US seems pretty stupid to keep buying them is they only ever cost money but hey you got trump, repeating the same point does not make it more true, and yes nuclear waste are a cost, and yes i agree that burying it is not the solution but we can predict where there is chances of having earthquakes so that is not a huge problem and if buried deep enough the leakage radiation would be lower than ambient.
Renewables IS happening now. Fastest driver is WIND p0wr, truly clean, low maintenance, Fast to build, Thoroughly mature technology. We can build 10x the megawatt wind capacity in the same time it takes to construct 1 n00q plant.
truly clean, false, the very large amount of steel needed is a large pollution, and they need to be replaced every 5 years or so, and your storage infrastructure will be a large pollution too, as wind does not produce at night and does have 0 inertia for when something goes wrong.
Each plant is also a ~600Billion to 2Trillion Dollar liability. Jpn is facing that right now. NON STOP COSTS in case of disaster. Nature is relentless, and you can never be safe. Jpn is also now incurring the human cost of ~3,000 years of radiation assault @ the genetic lvl. Massive rise in cancer/ depression.
well it was known that building them in japan of all places was a bad idea, no other country built reactors in seismically active zones for a reason, we all knew it would happen but then maybe japan thought that after 2 nukes nuclear could not affect them anymore.
It's virtually impossible to truly decontaminate.
that part is true. it is why it took 2 major natural disasters to make one out of 4 reactor fail, because there are tons of fail-safes in place for that not to happen, there are from ourworldindata there is about 300 times more death per year from coal than nuclear, because coal feel safer so not fail-safes in places.