4 ms·

So we can just put it all in your house and you'll be cool with that? After all, there are more dangerous things out there, and we won't be putting any of those

So we can just put it all in your house and you'll be cool with that? After all, there are more dangerous things out there, and we won't be putting any of those in your house, so that makes it okay right?

djur 6y ago
"Would you be willing to have your house turned into a waste dump?" is a challenge that would seem to strike down virtually every industrial process dating back to the Stone Age.
- Klinky 6y ago
  I don't think anyone would say that a lot of industrial processes aren't extremely toxic and dangerous. The question was asked due to the downplaying of the dangers of nuclear waste. Just because something like dimethylmercury is possibly more toxic than radioactive waste, doesn't mean radioactive waste is safe, or that you want to be near it.
Pfhreak 6y ago
This question is asked in incredibly bad faith. No one anywhere has suggested storing waste (nuclear, coal ash, solar manufacturing, or any other kind of waste) in anyone's home. Or even their neighborhood.
- Klinky 6y ago
  He did kind of suggest that it'd be okay to just dump it in the ocean, which would be a terrible idea.
bluejellybean 6y ago
Absolutely, why not? As long as the waste dealer is offering a deal that is satisfactory for me as the landowner/waste site, I would happily store said waste. Your question is a bit absurd; nobody is suggesting to keep it inside of someone's home. Should an individual not be allowed to make rational decisions about their land and property? If I owned 20 square miles in the desert, why shouldn't I be allowed to lease my land to waste storage companies? The waste storage people are already regulated to death, for a good reason, and as long as the waste on site is stored safely why should I or anyone else mind?
- jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
  In my personal philosophy, as a landowner you are responsible not only for yourself and your neighbors, but also for the next 7 generations of people who will be using that space after you. So to me, no you have no right. But that's just my own opinion.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    I suppose you don't have any right to put solar panels on your home, then, given that they're full of chemical waste that remains dangerous indefinitely.
  - bluejellybean 6y ago
    Personally, I would agree that it's your responsibility for your own land, but I also don't believe in forcing owners to do what I personally want them to do. If you can own a farm without polluting across the street, say,to my house, I really can't care what you do. If you want to sell the farm and throw up a bunch of houses, again, as not as you don't screw with my land and my ability to pass it on to future generations. I do NOT agree that I an responsible for my neighbors or their land and this is part of the issue. If my farm dumps a bunch of crap or ejects a ton of pollutants into the air, this harms my neighbor and should be limited. If instead, I build my farm and is net 0 pollutants to your land, why exactly should you be able to do on 'my' land, or put another way, who is the victim? To frame this another way that I think is fairly similar to nuclear, I think large scale organic farming is extremely taxing to the land in the long run and is a fairly terrible agricultural practice at our current scale. Does this mean we should enact laws and regulations to stop organic farming? I'm really not so sure, I can understand both sides and I don't think this type of legislation will ever be so cut and dry.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Your neighbors and county can certainly challenge the use of "your" land. I think you're assuming that ownership means you can "do whatever the hell you want". Ordinances, zoning, right of way, eminent domain, and federal regulations often restrict what you can do and may require ceding control of parts/all of your land, and if your neighbors are really pissed, they could certainly raise hell and make it very difficult.

djur 6y ago

"Would you be willing to have your house turned into a waste dump?" is a challenge that would seem to strike down virtually every industrial process dating back to the Stone Age.

Klinky 6y ago
I don't think anyone would say that a lot of industrial processes aren't extremely toxic and dangerous. The question was asked due to the downplaying of the dangers of nuclear waste. Just because something like dimethylmercury is possibly more toxic than radioactive waste, doesn't mean radioactive waste is safe, or that you want to be near it.

Pfhreak 6y ago

This question is asked in incredibly bad faith. No one anywhere has suggested storing waste (nuclear, coal ash, solar manufacturing, or any other kind of waste) in anyone's home. Or even their neighborhood.

Klinky 6y ago
He did kind of suggest that it'd be okay to just dump it in the ocean, which would be a terrible idea.

bluejellybean 6y ago

Absolutely, why not? As long as the waste dealer is offering a deal that is satisfactory for me as the landowner/waste site, I would happily store said waste. Your question is a bit absurd; nobody is suggesting to keep it inside of someone's home. Should an individual not be allowed to make rational decisions about their land and property? If I owned 20 square miles in the desert, why shouldn't I be allowed to lease my land to waste storage companies? The waste storage people are already regulated to death, for a good reason, and as long as the waste on site is stored safely why should I or anyone else mind?

jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
In my personal philosophy, as a landowner you are responsible not only for yourself and your neighbors, but also for the next 7 generations of people who will be using that space after you. So to me, no you have no right. But that's just my own opinion.
- antepodius 6y ago
  I suppose you don't have any right to put solar panels on your home, then, given that they're full of chemical waste that remains dangerous indefinitely.
- bluejellybean 6y ago
  Personally, I would agree that it's your responsibility for your own land, but I also don't believe in forcing owners to do what I personally want them to do. If you can own a farm without polluting across the street, say,to my house, I really can't care what you do. If you want to sell the farm and throw up a bunch of houses, again, as not as you don't screw with my land and my ability to pass it on to future generations. I do NOT agree that I an responsible for my neighbors or their land and this is part of the issue. If my farm dumps a bunch of crap or ejects a ton of pollutants into the air, this harms my neighbor and should be limited. If instead, I build my farm and is net 0 pollutants to your land, why exactly should you be able to do on 'my' land, or put another way, who is the victim? To frame this another way that I think is fairly similar to nuclear, I think large scale organic farming is extremely taxing to the land in the long run and is a fairly terrible agricultural practice at our current scale. Does this mean we should enact laws and regulations to stop organic farming? I'm really not so sure, I can understand both sides and I don't think this type of legislation will ever be so cut and dry.
Klinky 6y ago
Your neighbors and county can certainly challenge the use of "your" land. I think you're assuming that ownership means you can "do whatever the hell you want". Ordinances, zoning, right of way, eminent domain, and federal regulations often restrict what you can do and may require ceding control of parts/all of your land, and if your neighbors are really pissed, they could certainly raise hell and make it very difficult.