I am opposed to depleted uranium armaments, and while they have been shown to have significant health effects (especially on the populations stuck living in the areas where the amunition was used), it has been ruled out as a likely cause of gulf war syndrome which is linked to the use of non-nuclear toxic chemics.

Indeed, while I don't have specific numbers to prove this, I highly suspect that the health risks of non-nuclear toxic waste (by products from chemical plants and manufacturing) outweigh those of toxic nuclear waste and the release of these chemicals are often far less regulated than nuclear waste.

In terms of nuclear waste disasters, the Marshall Islands is the most significant example (that I know of) of a nuclear waste problem that the US needs to step up and address. [0]

[0] https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-te...

I not saying that nuclear is the future, but it is a important amd relativly safe source that we can use as stop gap to limit our use of more dangerous power sources while we fight global warming and find safer and cleaner sources of energy. We need to consider all of the risks of our power sources and not spread misinformation and fear.

You've been very reasonable with your arguments. I appreciate that. We obviously aren't going to solve anything on a comment board.

I would argue that the effects on US soil, the leaks into the Columbia river from Washington are incomparable to the Marshall Islands. But I feel we may be moving the goal posts in our discussion.

Funnily enough depleted uranium, the testing site in the Marshall Islands and the Handford plutonium production site are are military uses of nuclear technology and don't really have much at all to do with nuclear power.