ssri on Gordian Knot News

Very forceful essay. Basically somewhat like drinking from a firehose. These cost increasing factors do seem to be a major impediment to implementing nuclear power as widely and quickly as a rational assessment would warrant. However, I did not attempt to follow through to the referenced sources you provided. I also scanned* the 101 page pdf for the Underwriter Certification process (recognizing some text from your past recent posts). Somehow I ended up coming away with a possibly OT question: What other biological risks are there besides down stream cancer results? I am thinking mostly in terms of birth defects. I vaguely recall you have already mentioned this is not a major concern - but I forgot why :-( [Lower probably of gamete DNA damage as the sex organs are a small % of total body volume, etc. ??] *Since I only scanned the doc, I might have missed if you also provided a set of sample payouts. For example, for high, medium, and low exposures. E.g., if you were 10 miles from TMI, you got $X. If 1 mile from TMI you got $Y. If you were within 500 or 1000 yards of TMI you get $Z, plus weekly medical exams for the first 8 weeks, and monthly exams for the rest of the year [or whatever - I just made that up]. I think having a sample/ example was an item I suggested in a previous comment? I suspect even legislative staffers might want to have a story to tell constituents along the lines of "here are some typical benefits", etc.