6 ms·

More FUD. Nuclear energy is the safest energy.

by 781 7y ago

Someone1234 7y ago
This is waste from nuclear weapons testing, it was concreted over as a "temporary measure" and now it seems like a more permanent solution needs to be found. Unclear why you believe nuclear energy (by which I assume you mean nuclear power generation) is relevant.
- stonogo 7y ago
  For the same reason many readers will assume this headline is about power: "nuclear waste" is a term generally associated with reactor byproducts or weapons decommissioning. Previous articles about this dome have used terms like "radioactive contamination" or "fallout-contaminated soil" instead, which does not have the connotations of nuclear reactor programs. I suppose those terms don't "pop" as well in headlines.
- OrgNet 7y ago
  Maybe they need to learn how to blow up their weapons all the way so that no radioactive waste is left (for testing)
gaze 7y ago
I've sorta reached the conclusion that nuclear energy is the safest form of energy if everyone is well behaved and disciplined about it. On the other hand, given the wrong incentives, you might just stow nuclear waste where it's cheapest and where you can get away with it, and then not be penalized when the containment mechanism you cheaped out on fails... or maybe you just conveniently forget to do maintenance on it as the responsibility for doing maintenance somehow conveniently evaporates due to some bureaucracy. I think the debate isn't over whether or not nuclear power itself is safe, it's the debate over whether or not humans under capitalism are to be trusted to behave responsibly with this technology. Nuclear power isn't just the technology in isolation... humans are an intrinsic part of it.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Humans under what, then? I wonder if you're aware that the socialist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union were not just economic failures; they were also environmental catastrophes. Jeffrey Sachs has commented that the socialist nations had “some of the worst environmental problems in the entire globe.”. Companies can be held to account (failure to do so is another story) but try that with a centrally run enterprise.
  - gaze 7y ago
    "failure to do so is another story" How is that 'another story?' It's THE story.
- wnkrshm 7y ago
  I think that nuclear power generation has been relatively safe over almost a century exactly due to systems engineering, incorporating procedures and the potential for human error. I also think that you are right that some of the systems surrounding nuclear energy are suboptimally managed in places (and are often intransparent for the public, which I think is one of the factors why people are still afraid). And I think it's because nuclear power generation is a social commitment on a very long time scale - and humans aren't very good at dealing with cause and effect over long time scales. While there is, just like in aeronautics, a paper trail connecting to each engineer and expert working on a system, it does not matter whether society can identify a person that is responsible for a decision made half a century ago. Think about leaky permanent[0] waste storage close to densely populated areas (like in Germany). Analyzing what went wrong is suddenly a task for historians, not for engineers. And history is of course necessarily colored in perspective - politicans can point to an expert who was wrong half a century ago. In engineering and safety culture, iteration is necessary to approach an optimal system - the problem is here: How can we learn from what happened decades ago when the cause wasn't a part, a design or a process, something that can be simulated with a high degree of confidence? But a decision necessarily based on lots of unknowns? What can we do to be able to learn from it next time? [0] officially temporary but due to how it was done effectively permanent Edit: Markup
calibas 7y ago
Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is. Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium-discovered-radiation-cancer-1424704 https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...
- ccffph 7y ago
  It's very worrying to see comments like this become more and more common on HN. Yes, I will take the waste. If it's in the containers we've developed specifically for this purpose, yes. It beats the current situation in the US where everyone stores waste on site because politicians can't decide where to put it because of people like you. Modern waste, with proper precautions, is safe for long term disposal and storage. I cannot stress this enough. If you don't believe me, this website has plenty of information regarding nuclear power, straight from the source. It is developed and run by the UN. Based on your misinformation, I strongly urge you to pore over this content and then attempt to reevaluate your own question. http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library.aspx
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    > world-nuclear.org There is nothing more sad out there than linking to a homepage the nuclear lobby uses to drive this artificial nuclear hype we've seen here in the last months.
    - mikestew 7y ago
      That says nothing about the truthiness of the page. Let's hypothetically assume that every word on the page is true. Would one not expect the "nuclear lobby" to link to it? Let's assume every word on the page is a lie, but favorable toward nuclear energy. Would one not expect... There is nothing more sad... I can think of two things: 1. A lack of second order thinking. 2. Dead puppies.

More FUD. Nuclear energy is the safest energy.

by 781 7y ago

More FUD. Nuclear energy is the safest energy.

This is waste from nuclear weapons testing, it was concreted over as a "temporary measure" and now it seems like a more permanent solution needs to be found. Unclear why you believe nuclear energy (by which I assume you mean nuclear power generation) is relevant.

stonogo 7y ago
For the same reason many readers will assume this headline is about power: "nuclear waste" is a term generally associated with reactor byproducts or weapons decommissioning. Previous articles about this dome have used terms like "radioactive contamination" or "fallout-contaminated soil" instead, which does not have the connotations of nuclear reactor programs. I suppose those terms don't "pop" as well in headlines.
OrgNet 7y ago
Maybe they need to learn how to blow up their weapons all the way so that no radioactive waste is left (for testing)

gaze 7y ago

I've sorta reached the conclusion that nuclear energy is the safest form of energy if everyone is well behaved and disciplined about it. On the other hand, given the wrong incentives, you might just stow nuclear waste where it's cheapest and where you can get away with it, and then not be penalized when the containment mechanism you cheaped out on fails... or maybe you just conveniently forget to do maintenance on it as the responsibility for doing maintenance somehow conveniently evaporates due to some bureaucracy. I think the debate isn't over whether or not nuclear power itself is safe, it's the debate over whether or not humans under capitalism are to be trusted to behave responsibly with this technology. Nuclear power isn't just the technology in isolation... humans are an intrinsic part of it.

vixen99 7y ago
Humans under what, then? I wonder if you're aware that the socialist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union were not just economic failures; they were also environmental catastrophes. Jeffrey Sachs has commented that the socialist nations had “some of the worst environmental problems in the entire globe.”. Companies can be held to account (failure to do so is another story) but try that with a centrally run enterprise.
- gaze 7y ago
  "failure to do so is another story" How is that 'another story?' It's THE story.
wnkrshm 7y ago
I think that nuclear power generation has been relatively safe over almost a century exactly due to systems engineering, incorporating procedures and the potential for human error. I also think that you are right that some of the systems surrounding nuclear energy are suboptimally managed in places (and are often intransparent for the public, which I think is one of the factors why people are still afraid). And I think it's because nuclear power generation is a social commitment on a very long time scale - and humans aren't very good at dealing with cause and effect over long time scales. While there is, just like in aeronautics, a paper trail connecting to each engineer and expert working on a system, it does not matter whether society can identify a person that is responsible for a decision made half a century ago. Think about leaky permanent[0] waste storage close to densely populated areas (like in Germany). Analyzing what went wrong is suddenly a task for historians, not for engineers. And history is of course necessarily colored in perspective - politicans can point to an expert who was wrong half a century ago. In engineering and safety culture, iteration is necessary to approach an optimal system - the problem is here: How can we learn from what happened decades ago when the cause wasn't a part, a design or a process, something that can be simulated with a high degree of confidence? But a decision necessarily based on lots of unknowns? What can we do to be able to learn from it next time? [0] officially temporary but due to how it was done effectively permanent Edit: Markup

calibas 7y ago

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is. Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium-discovered-radiation-cancer-1424704 https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

ccffph 7y ago
It's very worrying to see comments like this become more and more common on HN. Yes, I will take the waste. If it's in the containers we've developed specifically for this purpose, yes. It beats the current situation in the US where everyone stores waste on site because politicians can't decide where to put it because of people like you. Modern waste, with proper precautions, is safe for long term disposal and storage. I cannot stress this enough. If you don't believe me, this website has plenty of information regarding nuclear power, straight from the source. It is developed and run by the UN. Based on your misinformation, I strongly urge you to pore over this content and then attempt to reevaluate your own question. http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library.aspx
- Krasnol 7y ago
  > world-nuclear.org There is nothing more sad out there than linking to a homepage the nuclear lobby uses to drive this artificial nuclear hype we've seen here in the last months.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    That says nothing about the truthiness of the page. Let's hypothetically assume that every word on the page is true. Would one not expect the "nuclear lobby" to link to it? Let's assume every word on the page is a lie, but favorable toward nuclear energy. Would one not expect... There is nothing more sad... I can think of two things: 1. A lack of second order thinking. 2. Dead puppies.