5 ms·

Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your ris

Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat). I don't mind hydro. I don't particularly like the habitat destruction but they provide tons of clean power and tons of fresh water. But those dams have to be maintained for those 500 years. A collapse of a dam is pretty catastrophic.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. That'll be great news for all the governments who haven't come up with a plain "solution" that'll definitely work for all the time it needs to work, because only God could really make sure of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m... > It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Compared to tens of thousands, 500 years sounds great. Though you do have a point in that dams are not great, either, because 500 years are a long time, too. But a risk being "probabilistic" also applies to dam accidents, since not every single last person in the wider area of it dies. I know it sucks either way, but having cared for cancer patients, I would rather drown in 5 minutes than over the course of months like one might with lung cancer.
SkyBelow 7y ago
> One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). There are two cases to consider. Accident and normal waste. Accidents aren't nearly as contained. Normal waste is contained for now, but what about long term? We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable. >Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. ...some... Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan? >Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. But to what extent are these the ones being pushed for? >Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat). Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic? Imagine if some company dumping sludge into drinking water was making the same argument. Would we find it acceptable?
- rukittenme 7y ago
  > We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable. 98% of radioactive waste is "safe" after 40 or so years. After 40 years the radiation is 1/1000th of its initial waste state. The 1,000 - 10,000 year period generally cited is for the radioactive products to decay back to their original ore's radioactive intensity. > Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan? Russian FSB. > Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic? Yes. Would you rather die now or have a 10% increased chance of developing a cancer that may or may not be treatable 10 years from now?
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >Actually, we already are to some extent with trans individuals. While most groups that support LGB also include the T, there are a few who do not and take offensive. That isn't the comparison being made.

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> Nuclear waste is not as dangerous as you think. That'll be great news for all the governments who haven't come up with a plain "solution" that'll definitely work for all the time it needs to work, because only God could really make sure of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m... > It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Compared to tens of thousands, 500 years sounds great. Though you do have a point in that dams are not great, either, because 500 years are a long time, too. But a risk being "probabilistic" also applies to dam accidents, since not every single last person in the wider area of it dies. I know it sucks either way, but having cared for cancer patients, I would rather drown in 5 minutes than over the course of months like one might with lung cancer.

SkyBelow 7y ago

> One, its contained within a very small area (which increases its lethality but substantially decreases your risk of exposure). There are two cases to consider. Accident and normal waste. Accidents aren't nearly as contained. Normal waste is contained for now, but what about long term? We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable. >Two, some waste products decay alpha particles which are basically harmless unless consumed. ...some... Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan? >Three, some waste products have short half-lives which increases their risk in the short term but substantially decreases their risk over a 500 year period. But to what extent are these the ones being pushed for? >Four, most deaths from nuclear waste would be slow and probabilistic (e.g. 18% increase cancer risk for an individual with high exposure) whereas deaths from some other power source would be immediate and devastating (e.g. flood, destruction of habitat). Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic? Imagine if some company dumping sludge into drinking water was making the same argument. Would we find it acceptable?

rukittenme 7y ago
> We are looking at time length longer than any government has been stable. 98% of radioactive waste is "safe" after 40 or so years. After 40 years the radiation is 1/1000th of its initial waste state. The 1,000 - 10,000 year period generally cited is for the radioactive products to decay back to their original ore's radioactive intensity. > Also, what vectors could these particles enter into food when you consider their lifespan? Russian FSB. > Are we really suggesting that the death isn't comparable because it is a long term probabilistic? Yes. Would you rather die now or have a 10% increased chance of developing a cancer that may or may not be treatable 10 years from now?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Actually, we already are to some extent with trans individuals. While most groups that support LGB also include the T, there are a few who do not and take offensive. That isn't the comparison being made.