Endangered Species Watch

Yes, and that is likely one of several forcing functions behind natural evolution. The harmful ones die out whiles the few beneficial ones tend to multiply.

The idiots who framed the Endangered Species Act evidently forgot all that.

The real world is far more complex than the simple-minded theories by which you would have us all guide our lives. You make that amply evident in the many sappy platitudes and banalities with which you pollute these threads.

I wrote that nuclear power has a better safety record than either coal, natural gas or wind turbines. That is simply a fact based on readily available U.S. government industrial safety statistics taken over the past 40 years, during which nuclear power stations have produced roughly 22% of the electrical power consumed in the country. The same pattern is observable in the safety data for France, Germany, Sweden, the UK and other nations using substantial amounts pif nuclear power.

The Fukushima reactor failures didn't kill anyone in Japan, though the tsunami that caused it killed over 12,000 unfortunate Japanese along the east coast in villages, towns and even railroad trains. The reactor plant failure certainly didn't come anywhere near close to wiping out life even in the plant enclosures, much less the entire northern hemisphere. Pacific tuna is still being sold and consumed. There is no radiation hazard associated with it. If you're looking for hazards in fish , consider mercury poisoning, though the quantities involved are vanishingly small.

You aren't the judge of credibility on this or any forum, though considering your relative loneliness here, you might want to consider your own.

In these areas I, unlike you, do really know what I am talking about. I'm an engineer with a PhD in Fluid Mechanics and a graduate of Navy Nuclear Power Training (an 18 month course involving reactor physics, design and operations. I was directly in charge of a 1,000MW nuclear plant for four years. I currently manage an environmental consulting company specializing in environmental compliance. pollution prevention and remedial cleanups at sites nationwide.

I didn't write that wind and solar are "not viable" sources of electrical power. I did write that they are about three times as expensive as nuclear or gas, and that, because the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time, they can never replace conventional sources for base load capacity. I also wrote that without government subsidies and mandates they simply can't compete with conventional sources. These statements are as true today as when I wrote them.

You can find examples of your sappy platitudes on your latest post and almost any of those you have written here.