3 ms·

This seems to have ignored the 1600 people who died during Fukushima evacuation, and it didn't mention the possible thyroid cancer cases in children around Fuku

This seems to have ignored the 1600 people who died during Fukushima evacuation, and it didn't mention the possible thyroid cancer cases in children around Fukushima. It also didn't mention link between spent nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons. Seems to me that's a good reason to avoid it. (Yes, it might be possible to separate these two, but it seems to me it's still a few years down the road.) There's a pretty good summary of the negative effects here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEYbgyL5n1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEYbgyL5n1g

kirrent 11y ago
The 1600 people who died in the evacuation were being evacuated during a natural disaster that was far more devastating. Not mentioning increased rates of thyroid cancer could be attributed to journalistic integrity. There is no evidence of higher incidences of any cancer in any group of residents and it's not expected that there will be. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full The plutonium in spent nuclear fuel is very difficult to purify to weapons grade. If you're not satisfied with inspections of purifying facilities then taking the waste off the hands of problem countries for free has been discussed. Unfortunately, Uranium isn't that rare or hard for countries to come by. If they really want nuclear weapons then a normal breeding program is the simplest way to do it. That video you linked to was hilarious. Reprocessing is a great idea. There's no harm in waiting a hundred years for a method of getting rid of your spare plutonium when it means you get to reduce the total amount of radioactive waste anyway. Also, while we may wail and gnash our teeth at having nowhere to store our nuclear waste the truth is that governments overwhelmingly deal with the very quite simple problem of storage in a competent manner. Certainly more competently managed than our storage of the products of coal power generation in our atmosphere has been.

kirrent 11y ago

The 1600 people who died in the evacuation were being evacuated during a natural disaster that was far more devastating. Not mentioning increased rates of thyroid cancer could be attributed to journalistic integrity. There is no evidence of higher incidences of any cancer in any group of residents and it's not expected that there will be. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full The plutonium in spent nuclear fuel is very difficult to purify to weapons grade. If you're not satisfied with inspections of purifying facilities then taking the waste off the hands of problem countries for free has been discussed. Unfortunately, Uranium isn't that rare or hard for countries to come by. If they really want nuclear weapons then a normal breeding program is the simplest way to do it. That video you linked to was hilarious. Reprocessing is a great idea. There's no harm in waiting a hundred years for a method of getting rid of your spare plutonium when it means you get to reduce the total amount of radioactive waste anyway. Also, while we may wail and gnash our teeth at having nowhere to store our nuclear waste the truth is that governments overwhelmingly deal with the very quite simple problem of storage in a competent manner. Certainly more competently managed than our storage of the products of coal power generation in our atmosphere has been.