As to your technical point, I wasn't addressing the overall question of tritium production, and how much of it comes from neutron bombardment of deuterium. I was addressing the specific point that you introduced into the discussion, namely radioactive heavy water. The point is that heavy water can be radioactive after its use in a reactor because of deuterium being converted to tritium. That tritium is also produced in other ways is irrelevant.
I agreed with your point that heavy water in general is not (significantly) radioactive. In return, you appear to concede my point that it can become radioactive. Someone who casually reads an article in the popular press might get these points confused and not realize that deuterium and tritium are two different isotopes. My point is that this kind of mistake is not propagated by the important anti-nuclear sources, the way comparable mistakes are propagated by climate change deniers.
That brings me to the second part of my subject line -- the trivia. As far as I can tell, you're reacting to casual observations, some of which may be in personal conversations or blog posts. These are trivia. They contrast with the institutionalized anti-science of the climate change deniers. I gave you one link, citing five such deniers; many more are available. What I've seen from anti-nuclear leaders, such as the four you mention, is not comparable.
Now, I don't doubt that, somewhere along the line, Caldicott, Gunderson, Markey or Sanders might have garbled something (or, of course, been misreported). The issue, though, is whether the anti-nuclear movement persistently misrepresents scientific conclusions. An incidental mistake by one person, not central to the argument and not widely adopted, doesn't count.
= new reply since forum marked as read
