ISL poisons the ground for tens of kilometers around and isn't even usable on a lot of deposits. When hydrologists and geologists point this out they are met with 'it attenuates'. Mining and milling is also where the deaths in nuclear mostly happen and looking at the legal fights around basically any past or present uranium mine looks exactly like the fossil fuel or tobacco industries.
The quantity of Uranium is also much larger than you're making out. A 1kw system backed by diurnal storage with lithium batteries would use about the same amount of lithium as the nuclear reactor uses in uranium. The mines are also lower impact per unit output.
Solar uses smaller quantities of everything else involved from chromium to copper to zirconium to cadmium to indium to steel or sand. The only holdout is silver, and the gap for that is getting narrower by the month.
Wind uses more concrete and more steel but less of everything else.
> In fact, if we took nuclear seriously we wouldn't need to mine much anymore as we already have more then enough.
This is just a flat out lie. But I'm glad we agree. Let's just stop uranium mining overnight, and we can see your nuclear utopia emerge.
> Chernobyl was looked at by an international panel of scientist and engineers and early death related to it are below 1500. And many of those people live to pretty old age still.
Scientists who all objected to the report that took their research out of context.