24 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoNothing 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 agoWell 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]