@frogzone Please learn the basics of a topic before complaining about it - don't watch the Simpsons and read media articles and think that's all you need to know about the topic.

>it does create a demand for the mining of things that should not be mined.
Most uranium is not mined - it's leached out of the ground instead; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining?useskin=monobook#Mining_techniques

Mining and leachate isn't good, but it's kind of good for the ground to be cleaned up via the removal of uranium.

>i'll just add i dont care about the "amount of enrichment" the stuff should barely be removed from the ground at all. Uses beyond medical be damned.
If you want radioactive isotopes for medical use, you need to leach or mine uranium in bulk, enrich it and shove it into a breeder reactor.

If you can ensure medical isotopes are created without allowing fuel to be enriched to nuke grade, or for enough plutonium to be bred, you can allow for power generation as well with the same requirements.

>Its false to claim spent fuel is not used in weapons
The fuel is not spent - it's slight used and just full of neutron poisons - if you remove the neutron poisons, it's ready for use again; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison?useskin=monobook#Accumulating_fission_product_poisons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing?useskin=monobook

>spent fuel bombs have also been used (or threathened to be used) in a current racist war the usa state dept is conducting via proxies they groomed over fecebook.
Dirty bombs have never been used in a war - they have only been tested.

If someone wanted to make a dirty bomb, they would likely go for medical isotopes via old medical generators, as slightly used fuel is too hard to acquire (you'll die of bullet wounds before reaching any used fuel storage pool).

Dirty bombs are more of a psychological weapon - they are unlikely to kill anyone, but they will freak the crap out of many people and result in hysteria and also be very expensive to clean up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb?useskin=monobook

As for attacks with radioactive isotopes, russia has done a few of those, for example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko?useskin=monobook

Polonium-210 usually needs to be produced in a breeder reactor, as only certain reactors produce that isotope; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium-210?useskin=monobook#Production

Using such kind of poison is incredibly stupid, considering how many effective poisons are available that may not even be detected, unlike a poison which will be detected and allow investigators to work out which reactor produced it and also where the poisoners went.

>(biden) seemingly allowed #amazon to purchase a nuclear power station in march.
That electricity is only going to be used to attack humanity, so it's a shame, but at least they didn't go for coal or gas.

>there's no save amount of "background" exposure, including of the waste produced.
Yes, there is a safe amount of radiation exposure - too little is harmful too; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis?useskin=monobook

The LNT model is utter garbage; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_threshold?useskin=monobook

>what kind of studies are u looking at?
My bad, it was cancer deaths I was thinking of, not cancer rates.

The amount of radiation nuclear workers get exposed to may or may not increase their risk of cancer, but I don't believe those studies looked into the death rate (just because you get cancer that is detected doesn't mean death is guaranteed - I believe the study I remembered reported lower cancer deaths - although I can't find it again at the moment); https://theconversation.com/nuclear-workers-risk-of-cancer-lower-than-previously-thought-21885