3 ms·

Organic chemical waste decomposes relatively quickly. Few of them survive 1000 year, and those that do are ironically things we perceive as safe (PET bottles an

by varjag 8y ago

Organic chemical waste decomposes relatively quickly. Few of them survive 1000 year, and those that do are ironically things we perceive as safe (PET bottles and bags).

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Yes. But that's my point. Nuclear waste isn't a huge problem, because there isn't much of it compared to any other kind of waste. It's tricky, because it lives longer, it's harder to neuter, and well... it's radioactive.
- abalone 8y ago
  > Nuclear waste isn't a huge problem, because there isn't much of it You just changed your argument. You originally said nuclear waste is less toxic than “‘regular’ waste from chemical industry,” not just that there was less of it. Even a smaller amount of highly toxic waste that stays that way for thousands of years is a huge problem.
  - Wildgoose 8y ago
    Either it's highly radioactive in which case it doesn't stay that way very long, or the opposite. Anything that remains radioactive for thousands of years is not very radioactive by definition.
  - mercutio2 8y ago
    I’m trying to find a charitable way to interpret your criticism, and I haven’t been able to find one. In every post in this thread, TeMPOraL has been making a consistent argument that nuclear produces orders of magnitude less waste than other not-routinely-treated-as-horrible industrial waste issues. You appear to be making the argument that “because there isn’t much of it” is a new argument, but that appears to be the core of their argument everywhere. Perhaps you were confusing who said what?
- Reason077 8y ago
  Besides that, the nice thing about nuclear waste is that it's so easy to detect if something is contaminated. Anyone can locate radiation sources with a relatively cheap Geiger counter. We also have a pretty good understanding of it's harmful effects. On the other hand, there are so many cases of contamination with persistent environmental toxins that aren't as easy to detect, or who's toxic effects are initially not understood. Just look the sad history of PCBs or at 3M's ongoing saga with PFOA and PFCs.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Heavy metals are technically even worse in that aspect as they never degrade. Arsenic and lead will be just as toxic millennia latter.
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  To add onto this there's an old gold mine in Canada that has literally over two hundred thousand tonnes of water soluble arsenic dust just lying about the bottom, and the remediation process for the area is going just fine. We are capable of storing dangerous materials without collapsing civilization, it just requires more work is all
- varjag 8y ago
  Recycling arsenic and lead is largely a solved problem for the last four decades or so. Very different from spent fuel rods.

by varjag 8y ago

Organic chemical waste decomposes relatively quickly. Few of them survive 1000 year, and those that do are ironically things we perceive as safe (PET bottles and bags).

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Yes. But that's my point. Nuclear waste isn't a huge problem, because there isn't much of it compared to any other kind of waste. It's tricky, because it lives longer, it's harder to neuter, and well... it's radioactive.

abalone 8y ago
> Nuclear waste isn't a huge problem, because there isn't much of it You just changed your argument. You originally said nuclear waste is less toxic than “‘regular’ waste from chemical industry,” not just that there was less of it. Even a smaller amount of highly toxic waste that stays that way for thousands of years is a huge problem.
- Wildgoose 8y ago
  Either it's highly radioactive in which case it doesn't stay that way very long, or the opposite. Anything that remains radioactive for thousands of years is not very radioactive by definition.
- mercutio2 8y ago
  I’m trying to find a charitable way to interpret your criticism, and I haven’t been able to find one. In every post in this thread, TeMPOraL has been making a consistent argument that nuclear produces orders of magnitude less waste than other not-routinely-treated-as-horrible industrial waste issues. You appear to be making the argument that “because there isn’t much of it” is a new argument, but that appears to be the core of their argument everywhere. Perhaps you were confusing who said what?
Reason077 8y ago
Besides that, the nice thing about nuclear waste is that it's so easy to detect if something is contaminated. Anyone can locate radiation sources with a relatively cheap Geiger counter. We also have a pretty good understanding of it's harmful effects. On the other hand, there are so many cases of contamination with persistent environmental toxins that aren't as easy to detect, or who's toxic effects are initially not understood. Just look the sad history of PCBs or at 3M's ongoing saga with PFOA and PFCs.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Heavy metals are technically even worse in that aspect as they never degrade. Arsenic and lead will be just as toxic millennia latter.

tomatotomato37 8y ago
To add onto this there's an old gold mine in Canada that has literally over two hundred thousand tonnes of water soluble arsenic dust just lying about the bottom, and the remediation process for the area is going just fine. We are capable of storing dangerous materials without collapsing civilization, it just requires more work is all
varjag 8y ago
Recycling arsenic and lead is largely a solved problem for the last four decades or so. Very different from spent fuel rods.