5 ms·

It is unreasonable. We over weigh the risk based on the exposure an accident gets, not the death toll . History shows the highest kwh per human life of any ener

It is unreasonable. We over weigh the risk based on the exposure an accident gets, not the death toll . History shows the highest kwh per human life of any energy source.

pvorb 6y ago
But there's more to it than the death toll. If something goes bad this would turn a large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years. And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? I think it's just too complex and we should look for simpler alternives.
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  >And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? A depot where the waste is beats the heck out what we're doing now, which is spewing waste directly into the atmosphere, which effects everywhere.
  - pvorb 6y ago
    That's a valid point. Power from fossil fuels is not better. Accidents happen far more often (tankers sinking and spilling millions of liters of oil into the sea), but somehow people seem to fear fossil fuel energy a lot less.
- valuearb 6y ago
  When has any of this happened? How many did Fukushima kill? Meanwhile fossil fuels kill millions every year and are slowly changing the habitability of the entire globe. I like the idea that somehow a civilization thousands of years in the future will not be advanced enough to have radioactivity meters, yet we should worry more about a couple of people in this far future dying because they dug into deeply buried radioactive storage instead of getting eaten by wolves as would be more common for those future hunter gatherers.
- p_l 6y ago
  You start by reprocessing it. By the time anyone forgets and reopens what's left after extensive reprocessing, it will be probably barely above background radiation - French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless than the ongoing efforts to cleanup WW1 battlefields.
  - everybodyknows 6y ago
    >French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless ... Would like to see a link for this. Here in the US, waste continues to be shuffled around in "short-term" storage containers long past their design lifetime, on a shoestring budget: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-put-public-at-risk/ https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-s...
- lixtra 6y ago
  > large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years Did you see what happened to the Chernobyl area? What you get is not wastelands but a wonderful nature reserve (with a for wildlife insignificant increase in cancer rate) that no human dares to permanently invade. For the ones that love nature over humans (that have to resettle and suffer from the exposure) it’s not a bad outcome.
- pvorb 6y ago
  Btw, the latter problem led to some interesting research since the eighties, e.g. "Communication Measures to Bridge Ten Millennia" https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990

It is unreasonable. We over weigh the risk based on the exposure an accident gets, not the death toll . History shows the highest kwh per human life of any energy source.

pvorb 6y ago

But there's more to it than the death toll. If something goes bad this would turn a large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years. And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? I think it's just too complex and we should look for simpler alternives.

Baeocystin 6y ago
>And how would you prevent future civilizations from opening nuclear waste deposits that should not be opened? A depot where the waste is beats the heck out what we're doing now, which is spewing waste directly into the atmosphere, which effects everywhere.
- pvorb 6y ago
  That's a valid point. Power from fossil fuels is not better. Accidents happen far more often (tankers sinking and spilling millions of liters of oil into the sea), but somehow people seem to fear fossil fuel energy a lot less.
valuearb 6y ago
When has any of this happened? How many did Fukushima kill? Meanwhile fossil fuels kill millions every year and are slowly changing the habitability of the entire globe. I like the idea that somehow a civilization thousands of years in the future will not be advanced enough to have radioactivity meters, yet we should worry more about a couple of people in this far future dying because they dug into deeply buried radioactive storage instead of getting eaten by wolves as would be more common for those future hunter gatherers.
p_l 6y ago
You start by reprocessing it. By the time anyone forgets and reopens what's left after extensive reprocessing, it will be probably barely above background radiation - French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless than the ongoing efforts to cleanup WW1 battlefields.
- everybodyknows 6y ago
  >French nuclear waste iirc has shorter timeframe to becoming harmless ... Would like to see a link for this. Here in the US, waste continues to be shuffled around in "short-term" storage containers long past their design lifetime, on a shoestring budget: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-put-public-at-risk/ https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2019/08/12/scandals-at-s...
lixtra 6y ago
> large area into a wasteland, that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years Did you see what happened to the Chernobyl area? What you get is not wastelands but a wonderful nature reserve (with a for wildlife insignificant increase in cancer rate) that no human dares to permanently invade. For the ones that love nature over humans (that have to resettle and suffer from the exposure) it’s not a bad outcome.
pvorb 6y ago
Btw, the latter problem led to some interesting research since the eighties, e.g. "Communication Measures to Bridge Ten Millennia" https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6705990