4 ms·
> Barring a major collapse, we are unlikely to forget about them, either That is a backwards way of looking at the problem. Creating labels such that future ge
by justin66 9y ago
> Barring a major collapse, we are unlikely to forget about them, either
That is a backwards way of looking at the problem. Creating labels such that future generations can identify harmful stuff after a collapse is much easier than guaranteeing a major collapse will not eventually occur. If you are thinking long term, why not just tick it off the list?
> The only scenario where we forget about these sites and the dangers of them is some hypothetical future collapse of civilization, where records are gone and the survivors have regressed to a pre-industrial understanding of the world.
> If you're an optimist, you don't expect that scenario to happen. But suppose it could - doesn't it make more sense to invest in carbon-neutral power technology like nuclear and maybe help stave off a potential collapse, rather than worry about a small number of the survivors dying of radiation sickness?
Suddenly, sharply regressing to nineteenth century industrial-era steam tech would probably be more than enough to make people stop researching the finer points of where the previous civilization buried its forgotten stuff. The interesting part if you're pro-nuclear is that one way to help those people in that future calamity is to use nuclear today and leave the relatively easy-to-use fossil fuels in the earth so those future people, in their dire straights and lessened technological status, can use energy and rebuild without having to figure out how to create and operate a nuclear reactor.
But none of that is an argument against making sure nuclear waste is well labeled and well concealed and so on.
- roenxi 9y agoIt isn't at all backwards, it is an argument that there is no problem beyond any other industrial process. If a hypothetical future society doesn't have the technology and wherewithal to identify a nuclear waste dump then the situation will be so catastrophic that accidentally stumbling into a nuclear waste dump isn't going to register with said hypotheticals. France produces 10g/citizen/year of waste [1]. This is a tiny volume, I've seen slag heaps from pre-modern lead mines (thinking the 70s) that are bigger than that that will sit there polluting waterways and whatnot. Lead poisoning in lead mining towns is one of the long list of things that is probably worse than Chernobyl. This is not a challenge that would register in the public discourse if nuclear radiation was visible like electromagnetic radiation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Enviro...
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y agoSo we should be just as complacent about radioactive waste, as about lead poisoning, because lead poisoning is (ostensibly) worse? Is that the general idea?
- justin66 9y ago> Lead poisoning in lead mining towns is one of the long list of things that is probably worse than Chernobyl. Chernobyl's effect on the environment, economy and human health was quite significant after hundreds of billions were spent and dozens of lives were lost containing its effect. This is a very strange comparison you have made.
- yodsanklai 9y ago> use nuclear today and leave the relatively easy-to-use fossil fuels Are the remaining fossil fuels still easy to find and extract?