3 ms·
> 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 “‘reg
by 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 agoEither 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 agoI’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?