3 ms·
I think the concerns around nuclear waste storage are a little overblown. A lot of nuclear waste is stored on site, which is an indication of how incredibly lit
by wcoenen 6y ago
I think the concerns around nuclear waste storage are a little overblown. A lot of nuclear waste is stored on site, which is an indication of how incredibly little of it is produced. Compare that to the hundreds of millions of tons (!) of toxic coal ash that are produced and dumped somewhere annually. Surely trading millions of tons of coal ash for a few tons of nuclear waste would be an improvement?
- Tepix 6y agoYou are not considering how long this stuff will be around and how dangerous it is. That's like comparing a stockpile of bombs and comparing it to a single atomic bomb.
- wcoenen 6y agoA dump of coal ash will contain high levels of lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, and selenium. Which will either slowly leach into ground water and water ways (sometimes abruptly by dam failures) or must be kept contained forever. Heavy metal toxicity may be less dangerous than contamination with radioactive isotopes. But it's not clear to me that the waste rich in heavy metals is preferable if there's millions of times more of it. Because of the smaller scale, radioactive waste could just be put in a big building with some armed guards and regular inspections. Coal ash cannot be kept contained to that degree.
- coldtea 6y agoHere's a counter example: a single person getting access to nuclear waste and e.g. spreading it through a city, can kill tens of thousands. A little more difficult to do with coal ash or conventional waste...