34 ms·

The RationalWiki page on nuclear waste disposal is surprisingly informative (and non-snarky, by RW standards): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste http:/

by spangry 10y ago

The RationalWiki page on nuclear waste disposal is surprisingly informative (and non-snarky, by RW standards): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste As for the list of 'nuclear accidents', given all but one of the accidents listed have a fatality count of 0, I'm not sure what it is that alarms you. To be fair, the WHO projects a total of ~4000 deaths to occur as a result of Chernobyl (increased rate of cancer, using the linear no-threshold hypothesis). For Fukushima, the number seems likely to be either 'small' or 'none' based on WHO projections, although two TEPCO workers died at the time of the incident (they drowned, I believe) and a significantly larger number were killed as a result of the (perhaps overly cautious) evacuation of the surrounding populated areas.

ptx 10y ago
The link says that "no solution is in use today" for the waste management problem and that it "can't go on forever" but on the upside it "may not be an intractable problem". That sure sounds safe and sustainable to me!
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  There are "no solutions in use today" partly because it really isn't that big of a problem now. Compared to all the other toxic industrial waste we generate, nuclear waste is minuscule in quantity and manageable. The worry is not about it killing you, or me, or our children, or our children's children. It's a worry about the waste killing someone 5000 years from now, after civilization already collapsed twice and humans are living in caves again.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    So because we argue against nuclear waste, means we like other toxic waste? And the worry is exactly that there will be no more humans in 5000 years, because someone in charge might decide Who cares, makes careless decisions, and in the end more groundwater gets contaminated and though not immeaditely killing everyone, but damaging the genes so to produce more retards, leading us in a nice downward spiral.
hutzlibu 10y ago
So would you like to move to fukoshima then? I heard, houses are cheap ... So what I am saying is, it is not about the immediate death rate, it is about radiation. Cancer and so on ... it might not kill you, but can cripple you. The children born after chernobyl in my area, exposed to the toxic rain, had much more birth diseases. If a windturbine falls down, you remove the debris, if there is a meltdown you have to evacuate for a long time? See the difference? So again, I am not saying nuclear power should be banned. The alternatives are simply not ready yet. But labeling it as green is bs.
- spangry 10y ago
  Yes I understand the difference between a windturbine falling down and a nuclear meltdown. Those WHO projections, for both Chernobyl and Fukushima, include deaths from future cases of cancer. In Fukushima's case, the WHO specifically examined the effect that the increased radiation exposure would have on children. From their 2015 update: "Given the exposure to radioactive iodine during the early phase of the emergency, WHO specifically assessed the risk of thyroid cancer. The greatest risk was found among girls exposed as infants (i.e. < 1 year old) in the most affected area in the Fukushima prefecture. Even if those levels of risk might not be clinically detectable, WHO anticipated that the thyroid ultrasound screening programme being conducted in Fukushima prefecture was likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid diseases due to earlier detection of non-symptomatic cases. There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution. A large excess of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure, such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident, can be discounted because the estimated thyroid doses due to the Fukushima accident were substantially lower than in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening. Similar or even slightly higher rates of cysts and nodules were found in prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident. The substantial number of cases that have already been observed in the Fukushima Health Management Survey have been considered likely due to the sensitivity of the screening rather than to radiation exposure." 2015 update: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fuk... 2013 report: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_ris...

by spangry 10y ago

ptx 10y ago

The link says that "no solution is in use today" for the waste management problem and that it "can't go on forever" but on the upside it "may not be an intractable problem". That sure sounds safe and sustainable to me!

TeMPOraL 10y ago
There are "no solutions in use today" partly because it really isn't that big of a problem now. Compared to all the other toxic industrial waste we generate, nuclear waste is minuscule in quantity and manageable. The worry is not about it killing you, or me, or our children, or our children's children. It's a worry about the waste killing someone 5000 years from now, after civilization already collapsed twice and humans are living in caves again.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  So because we argue against nuclear waste, means we like other toxic waste? And the worry is exactly that there will be no more humans in 5000 years, because someone in charge might decide Who cares, makes careless decisions, and in the end more groundwater gets contaminated and though not immeaditely killing everyone, but damaging the genes so to produce more retards, leading us in a nice downward spiral.

hutzlibu 10y ago

So would you like to move to fukoshima then? I heard, houses are cheap ... So what I am saying is, it is not about the immediate death rate, it is about radiation. Cancer and so on ... it might not kill you, but can cripple you. The children born after chernobyl in my area, exposed to the toxic rain, had much more birth diseases. If a windturbine falls down, you remove the debris, if there is a meltdown you have to evacuate for a long time? See the difference? So again, I am not saying nuclear power should be banned. The alternatives are simply not ready yet. But labeling it as green is bs.

spangry 10y ago
Yes I understand the difference between a windturbine falling down and a nuclear meltdown. Those WHO projections, for both Chernobyl and Fukushima, include deaths from future cases of cancer. In Fukushima's case, the WHO specifically examined the effect that the increased radiation exposure would have on children. From their 2015 update: "Given the exposure to radioactive iodine during the early phase of the emergency, WHO specifically assessed the risk of thyroid cancer. The greatest risk was found among girls exposed as infants (i.e. < 1 year old) in the most affected area in the Fukushima prefecture. Even if those levels of risk might not be clinically detectable, WHO anticipated that the thyroid ultrasound screening programme being conducted in Fukushima prefecture was likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid diseases due to earlier detection of non-symptomatic cases. There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution. A large excess of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure, such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident, can be discounted because the estimated thyroid doses due to the Fukushima accident were substantially lower than in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening. Similar or even slightly higher rates of cysts and nodules were found in prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident. The substantial number of cases that have already been observed in the Fukushima Health Management Survey have been considered likely due to the sensitivity of the screening rather than to radiation exposure." 2015 update: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fuk... 2013 report: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_ris...