You use Chernobyl as your evidence for leaving a mark for centuries. Even though there have been plenty of reports that the Chernobyl exclusion zone have become a haven for wildlife.

knowablemagazine.org/co…

And it's only been a few decades. To say nothing of a few centuries. Additionally you offer up a single anecdote from the fog of war as the main bit of evidence.

Beyond that the reactors in question are totally different from those operating at Chernobyl. I was discussing it on another forum and someone knowledge had this to say about it:

"A PWR reactor core can only split uranium for a couple of years before needing refueling, and the presence of water as a moderator is required to keep the fission happening coolant-is-moderator is why runaway criticality isn't possible the way it was at Chernobyl. A meltdown can happen but it is a mostly local and short-lived affair (the heat flux from reactions decreases, but it starts high and there's no cooling coming in). After a few weeks at most the generated heat is in equilibrium with convection/conduction to the environment. The only thing that might last thousands of years is the measurable radiation of the molten core slag itself, but this is basically diluted nuclear waste. Just stay at least 5m away or pour concrete on it once its cool and you're fine.

Now in theory, you don't need a moderator to make the uranium react. Prompt fission is a thing and is used in three-stage thermonuclear weapons, where the ample flux of neutrons from the fusion reaction is used to split a lot of uranium atoms. Maybe in theory you could increase your nuclear yield if someone had left a bunch of solid pure PWR fuel in outside by placing your nuclear weapon right next to it.

But the fuel isn't just laying down on the ground in pure form, it is shaped into rods with spacing, inside a pressure vessel made of steel designed to contain water at around 150 atmospheres of pressure, wrapped inside a biological shield of 1-2m of concrete, which is itself inside a containment vessel designed to keep a leak of steam from the reactor from spreading radiation, and whose outside wall will stop a full-speed jet with hardly any damage. Your nuclear warhead isn't making it all the way to the fuel rods. A bunker-buster might make it through, but 1. they're usually dropped from a plane due to their high mass and 2. they're extremely narrow, making most nuclear weapons impractical. Maybe the B61-11 is up to the job in theory. Even then I give the resulting neutron flux a low chance of actually doing anything to the fuel."

(He could be talking out of his ass, but everything I've looked into checks out.)

Who are you relying on for your claims? Is there some book I should be reading? Some study I should peruse? Please, do tell!

For my part I've been reading the Jack Devanney/Gordian Knot News substack (jackdevanney.substack.c…) and as unconcerned as I was about nuclear before then. I'm at least 2x less concerned now.

Bottom line, the danger of being struck by a nuclear weapon is not a good reason to not build more nuclear.