6 ms·
The problem is in part the anti-nuclear folks don't want the problem to be solved. So you can build a skyscraper 100 feet tall in a high earthquake zone, but yo
by random5634 6y ago
The problem is in part the anti-nuclear folks don't want the problem to be solved. So you can build a skyscraper 100 feet tall in a high earthquake zone, but you can't build a container. The normal approach (france etc) is to recycle and then vitrify the leftovers and store in a container. You get much shorter half lives, much less waste. So even if it comes out the container, it's still "in" something. Of course, you can build a reasonably secure container as well.
- lispm 6y agoThere are a lot of authoritarian and pro-nuclear countries which have not solved the problem. Actually some of them (Russia, ...) have the worst environmental track record when it comes to nuclear technology.
- effie 6y agoRussia has a lot of uninhabited space, so the contamination does not seem to be a big problem for them. Lots of countries behave this way, UK and US included.
- lispm 6y agoWestern countries have spent many billions to secure the nuclear reactors of rotten USSR / Russian submarines which were endangering the baltic sea and also the Soviet RBMK-1000 reactor, which was causing the chernobyl disaster... > Russia has a lot of uninhabited space Nuclear installations are not in uninhabited space. For example the still operating (!) RMBK-style reactors are not that far away from major cities.
- effie 6y agoWest had the money and the will, I think that was a dollar well spent. US irradiated large areas of Pacific Ocean and atmosphere (US) with its testing program, harming people living there and contaminating whole world with radioactive isotopes. UK dumped radioactive waste in barrels into Atlantic ocean, has bad record on nuclear safety (Windscale accidents) and continues to run old nuclear power plant that does not pass old safety tests, so they make the test less and less restrictive [1]. The lax approach to safety has been observed on all sides. It has to improve but it is no reason to stop development of nuclear power. Soviet-build power plants near cities aren't as bad as people think, if run safely by competent people. Chernobyl was a preventable disaster, not solely due to technology, but mainly due to incompetence and dysfunctional society. Also, the disaster wasn't as bad as people think. Few people died when you compare to other industrial accidents. The really badly polluted installations in Russia are the military/research ones in restricted areas - Mayak, Lake Karachay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunterston_B_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunterston_B_nucl...
- lispm 6y ago> West had the money and the will, I think that was a dollar well spent. And the need, since the baltic sea has a lot of countries which would be effected by leaking nuclear reactors. mining, processing and 'storing' of nuclear material isn't any better in Russia. > Soviet-build power plants near cities aren't as bad as people think, if run safely by competent people I think there is not much reason pretending that the russian nuclear industry is especially competent.
- neoromantique 6y ago>I think there is not much reason pretending that the russian nuclear industry is especially competent. Yeah, except for the decades upon decades of research they've been doing on the topic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- lispm 6y agoLike how to run dangerously outdated reactor designs for decades?
- neoromantique 6y agoXenophobia isn't productive
- lispm 6y agoget well