Nuclear Power, page-424

Well Cookie,
the guardian of the galaxy, some mythical all knowing twit makes random statements, I am lead to believe, such as: Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option.
Is the guardian of the galaxy now suggesting some other nuclear options are greener?
Well, with the exceptions of where a community, country, state, gets all but 100% of their electricity from hydro, geothermal, or or - what? Then communities are using a mix of coal, gas, oil or wood fired electricity. With the exception of Tasmania, all Australian states get over 60% of their electricity from mainly coal or gas. So sorry, but solar, wind and batteries will not in our lifetimes supply the baseload electricity required to run a modern society 24/7/365. The mega batteries in Australia are not there to keep our home air cons running, they are there to stabilize the grid, so if power fails to come back on, the grid can be shut down in an orderly manner. The most critical users, like hospitals, will get ongoing power.
If you are in Australia and you buy an electric car and plug it into the grid, like 95% of owners, you are running your car on 65% coal - the by far dirtiest fuel in major use.
Back to the guardian of the galaxy's assertion; well thorium reactors are still a fair step from commercial reality. Indian scientists have been working on the proposition for some years and it is still in the laboratory stage.
But let's cut back to the guardians assertion. There is an under lying suggestion that nuclear is Not greener? Wrong, totally wrong.
What is wrong with nuclear? Basically 95% of people have no scientific understanding of science involved, they are controlled by fear.
A couple of facts. Since 1946 on average, less than 10 people, Worldwide die each year from nuclear accidents. But, according to the World Health Organisation 2 million people die Every year from pollution caused by the burning of coal.
Nobody died in the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. None.
About 60 people died as an immediate direct result of the Chernobyl accident. The World Health Organisation has various estimates of how many people will die in the 100 Years after Chernobyl, but generally less than 10,000 in 100 years. Various environmental organisations claimed up to 400,000 people would die. The WHO slapped them down, with 'your nonsense is unhelpful'. Those environmental organisation have gone silent.
Fukushima. Over 20,000 people died; according to the WHO, only One from radiation. The rest tragically died as a result of the tsunami. But tidal waves don't scare people and so people won't donate to save the save whatever. So the oblique lie is propagated. Even by our ABC's so call science programme.
The attempt to distract with assertions against thorium reactors is nothing more than an attempt to draw people away from the basic facts. Nuclear is by far the safest baseload option and it is by far the cleanest.
Last. Australia is the only member of the G20 which does not use nuclear power. (just to be clear, the G20 are the 20 largest economies in the World.) Several countries smaller than dumb arse Australia are using nuclear power and have no issue with it. One example Slovenia.
lemons