3 ms·

Nuclear waste is not "dumped". It is stored under the strictest safety regulations possible. It is the only energy source where 100% of the waste is captured an

Nuclear waste is not "dumped". It is stored under the strictest safety regulations possible. It is the only energy source where 100% of the waste is captured and securely managed. Yes, even renewables create unmanaged waste. Nobody has EVER died from nuclear waste, whereas millions (www.who.int/airpollution/en/) of people a year are estimated to die from the effects of fossil fuel waste.

bipson 7y ago
Hm, if you consider storing something for a timeframe that well exceeds everything we are possible to plan ahead "safe". We simply put it in underground storages we consider "safe" for the time being. We have no idea what will happen with this deposits considering such a long timespan. And this storage does not come for free. All these sites are maintained and must be. Just as much as the (very complicated) transport of the material. Every single castor transport in Germany and France is a huge operation. And "Nobody has ever died from" is such a great argument. "Nobody has ever died from radiation in space" does not mean we should ignore it, does it?
- mcjiggerlog 7y ago
  Yes, I consider storing something in a way that is a demonstrably secure as feasibly possible "safe", regardless of the timespans. Especially when compared to the alternative, which is fossil fuels spewing their waste straight into the air. And a better analogy would be that what anti-nuclear folk are arguing is like saying we shouldn't go to space at all because there's radiation there.
  - bipson 7y ago
    Nothing can be "demonstrably" secure if we cannot demonstrate it. We simply cannot guarantee control over the depot for the given time-frame. A lot of things can happen in 1 million years. You should really read this for another view on that "simple" topic: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-stag...
    - mcjiggerlog 7y ago
      Well nothing in this universe is 100% demonstrably true, yet we still must take an evidence-based and scientific approach to making energy policy decisions. The evidence says that the current management process is working. There is no evidence to say that the current process will stop working. We cannot paralyze ourselves with unfounded fears of future unknowns. What we do know is that there is plenty of evidence to say that there are going to be catastrophic consequences should we not clean up our energy production, and currently there is no 100% low-carbon solution that does not involve nuclear. I'd likewise recommend you read this for a contrasting viewpoint from the same publication: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-of-nuclear-waste-kill-the-planet/#110f5b6d562e https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

bipson 7y ago

Hm, if you consider storing something for a timeframe that well exceeds everything we are possible to plan ahead "safe". We simply put it in underground storages we consider "safe" for the time being. We have no idea what will happen with this deposits considering such a long timespan. And this storage does not come for free. All these sites are maintained and must be. Just as much as the (very complicated) transport of the material. Every single castor transport in Germany and France is a huge operation. And "Nobody has ever died from" is such a great argument. "Nobody has ever died from radiation in space" does not mean we should ignore it, does it?

mcjiggerlog 7y ago
Yes, I consider storing something in a way that is a demonstrably secure as feasibly possible "safe", regardless of the timespans. Especially when compared to the alternative, which is fossil fuels spewing their waste straight into the air. And a better analogy would be that what anti-nuclear folk are arguing is like saying we shouldn't go to space at all because there's radiation there.
- bipson 7y ago
  Nothing can be "demonstrably" secure if we cannot demonstrate it. We simply cannot guarantee control over the depot for the given time-frame. A lot of things can happen in 1 million years. You should really read this for another view on that "simple" topic: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-stag...
  - mcjiggerlog 7y ago
    Well nothing in this universe is 100% demonstrably true, yet we still must take an evidence-based and scientific approach to making energy policy decisions. The evidence says that the current management process is working. There is no evidence to say that the current process will stop working. We cannot paralyze ourselves with unfounded fears of future unknowns. What we do know is that there is plenty of evidence to say that there are going to be catastrophic consequences should we not clean up our energy production, and currently there is no 100% low-carbon solution that does not involve nuclear. I'd likewise recommend you read this for a contrasting viewpoint from the same publication: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-of-nuclear-waste-kill-the-planet/#110f5b6d562e https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]