3 ms·

Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. Temporary storage on site is a very bad idea. Leaks,

Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. Temporary storage on site is a very bad idea. Leaks, non uniform site security, drums that were designed for a few decades now being called to serve for a century. Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between

roenxi 7y ago
> Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. So based on information that you don't have but assume exists there is a problem? There is actual evidence of known problems that nuclear solves. Like air pollution from coal. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, the government does lie and I also subscribe to a couple of out-there conspiracy theories. It is just there is a lot of evidence that the nuclear threat is way overblown. > Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between You could move them in to new decade-long storage once a decade. As mentioned, those are small ponds. The world is not made up of absolutes.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  We do have evidence, and we have a distinct pattern of behaviour from the many public inquiries and investigations into the standard of management at Seascale / Windscale / Sellafield / THORP. To be glib, that's why there were so many renamings. To bury the inept history.
petre 7y ago
> Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between And burn coal instead, spread heavy metals and CO2 around and slowly poison everyone. That is the alternative, we saw it in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Oh, btw, Tepco has announced it will discharge further nuclear contaminated water in the ocean as they ran out of space to store it.
- MertsA 7y ago
  >spread heavy metals Like the trace amounts of Uranium in coal. And don't forget the Radon that comes up with natural gas either. For added fun, Radon is a noble gas so good luck economically removing it as opposed to just venting it all into the atmosphere.
  - petre 7y ago
    The main concern are arsenic and mercury which accumulate in bottom feeding sea critters some of which we eat (mainly shellfish and shrimp). The uptake of uranium are thorium in marine species is rather low, but yes, burning coal also spreads radiation. Some of the byproducts of nuclear fission (I131, Sr90) are more dangerous because they tend to stick around in our bodies. Uranium and thorium get excreted but the first one is also toxic. Of the two Radon isotopes, one has a half life of 55 seconds, the other 2.5 days. The main problem are its decay products: Pb210, Bi210 and Po210. It's better to vent it off into the atmosphere than to let it accumulate in mines and basements.
MertsA 7y ago
Care to point out a couple of those superfund sites? The only ones I'm even familiar with are the Hanford site and Savannah River which were military sites producing nuclear material for nuclear bombs and ICBMs. Hardly comparable to the limited processing that goes into fuel preparation for nuclear power plants, especially considering that fresh fuel is only weakly radioactive and requires no shielding at all between the fuel and the technicians wearing dosimeters all the time.

roenxi 7y ago

> Authorities lie, seagulls get cancers too, and there are superfund everywhere you find a nuclear industry. So based on information that you don't have but assume exists there is a problem? There is actual evidence of known problems that nuclear solves. Like air pollution from coal. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, the government does lie and I also subscribe to a couple of out-there conspiracy theories. It is just there is a lot of evidence that the nuclear threat is way overblown. > Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between You could move them in to new decade-long storage once a decade. As mentioned, those are small ponds. The world is not made up of absolutes.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
We do have evidence, and we have a distinct pattern of behaviour from the many public inquiries and investigations into the standard of management at Seascale / Windscale / Sellafield / THORP. To be glib, that's why there were so many renamings. To bury the inept history.

petre 7y ago

> Either have long term storage, or drop nuclear. There’s no in between And burn coal instead, spread heavy metals and CO2 around and slowly poison everyone. That is the alternative, we saw it in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Oh, btw, Tepco has announced it will discharge further nuclear contaminated water in the ocean as they ran out of space to store it.

MertsA 7y ago
>spread heavy metals Like the trace amounts of Uranium in coal. And don't forget the Radon that comes up with natural gas either. For added fun, Radon is a noble gas so good luck economically removing it as opposed to just venting it all into the atmosphere.
- petre 7y ago
  The main concern are arsenic and mercury which accumulate in bottom feeding sea critters some of which we eat (mainly shellfish and shrimp). The uptake of uranium are thorium in marine species is rather low, but yes, burning coal also spreads radiation. Some of the byproducts of nuclear fission (I131, Sr90) are more dangerous because they tend to stick around in our bodies. Uranium and thorium get excreted but the first one is also toxic. Of the two Radon isotopes, one has a half life of 55 seconds, the other 2.5 days. The main problem are its decay products: Pb210, Bi210 and Po210. It's better to vent it off into the atmosphere than to let it accumulate in mines and basements.

MertsA 7y ago

Care to point out a couple of those superfund sites? The only ones I'm even familiar with are the Hanford site and Savannah River which were military sites producing nuclear material for nuclear bombs and ICBMs. Hardly comparable to the limited processing that goes into fuel preparation for nuclear power plants, especially considering that fresh fuel is only weakly radioactive and requires no shielding at all between the fuel and the technicians wearing dosimeters all the time.