There's a lot of opposition to this plan, as mentioned in the article.

> Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power.

It's possible to be upset by both.

If there isn't another nuclear accident in my lifetime, I'll be happy to say my concerns were unwarranted.

> There's a lot of opposition to this plan, as mentioned in the article.

The opinions of a couple politicians are not reliably based on reality.

The fishing association is not worried about danger, but about sales.

And greenpeace is not going to give an unbiased answer on anything nuclear.

Taken together, that gives me extremely little worry about danger. The fishermen might be right, I guess.

> It's possible to be upset by both.

It is! But if you're not MUCH more upset about coal's radiation release, something has gone wrong.

I notice you didn't come back to me on my last point. Maybe that's something we can agree on ;)

I strongly expect to see zero major radiation releases from reactors that are generation III or later.

If we keep running very old reactors, I'm less confident. And I have not done sufficient research on "II+"

> If there isn't another nuclear accident in my lifetime, I'll be happy to say my concerns were unwarranted.

That might feel to you like a concession, point of compromise, but for us that's still a dangerously too high bar that puts the environment at risk.

That's the nub of my whole argument. I see nuclear energy via fission, as too a big risk.

We had safer designs than Chernobyl in the 1950s. The soviets cut a lot of corners in that reactor.