4 ms·
How can you calculate the risk if the modus operandi for the nuclear waste management for the next few thousand years is not known yet?
by tobltobs 10y ago
How can you calculate the risk if the modus operandi for the nuclear waste management for the next few thousand years is not known yet?
- CamperBob2 10y agoClearly it's better to spew the radioactive waste randomly into the air, like our existing coal plants do. The solution to pollution is dilution, right?
- bildung 10y ago> Clearly it's better to spew the radioactive waste randomly into the air, like our existing coal plants do. While coal plants do emit more radioactivity through the chimney than nuclear plants, that radioactivity pales in comparison to that emitted by both the nuclear waste and accidents of the latter. See http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-plants-release-more-radiation-than-nuclear-power-plants http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-pla... for sources. Also, nobody said coal and nuclear are the only possible technologies for creating electricity.
- CamperBob2 10y agoWhat matters isn't how much pollution is released. What matters is the harm and suffering it causes. Nuclear has a long, long way to go to catch up with carbon-based fuels in that regard. I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. To the extent that it is a problem, the solution is stupidly simple: store it in Antarctica where no technologically-illiterate humans can possibly come into contact with it, and where we can reclaim it later if/when we need it. Also, nobody said coal and nuclear are the only possible technologies for creating electricity. They're what we have to work with. Renewable sources should be aggressively explored and developed, but they are currently not sufficient by themselves.