3 ms·

These headlines really show how articles on nuclear waste do less to increase public knowledge than they do to increase confusion. The public has 0 concept abo

These headlines really show how articles on nuclear waste do less to increase public knowledge than they do to increase confusion. The public has 0 concept about how much background radiation is in the world around them, and how there are a LOT of daily activities that increase that exposure -- like flying in an airplane. The waste here, dumped into the open ocean -- whose size is mind-bogglingly large -- likely increases radiation exposure to the average person as much as them stepping outside for 1.3 extra seconds per century.

riskable 6y ago
I was going to say something similar: As long as they don't dump it all in one place and release it intelligently (accounting for ocean currents and mixing; basically hire meteorologists, oceanographers, and marine biologists) it should be quite safe. It's not like they're dumping the uranium rods into the ocean; they're (mostly) just trying to find a way to get rid of all that radioactive water. When diluted across the entire ocean it shouldn't have any impact on ecosystems and it shouldn't accumulate in predators (that we eat) like other types hazardous waste.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Even dumping uranium wouldn’t be so bad if you ground it up really finely and dispersed it thoroughly. There is a lot of uranium in the oceans naturally. A few kilos here and there is literally nothing in comparison, as long as it’s not in one spot.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    To be precise: there are about 4 billion tons of naturally dissolved uranium in the oceans currently.
derchu 6y ago
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
temp-dude-87844 6y ago
Yes, but this happens for everything, not just articles about nuclear waste. Lots of headlines sound bad devoid of a point of comparison, and lots of articles, reports, and statistics can be mistaken as alarming in isolation, without understanding the nuanced context of their domain. It's an unsolved problem in most societies to balance their desire to not withhold information from average citizens while avoiding widespread mistrust, outrage, or panic from those who lack the necessary background to place the information into context.

riskable 6y ago

I was going to say something similar: As long as they don't dump it all in one place and release it intelligently (accounting for ocean currents and mixing; basically hire meteorologists, oceanographers, and marine biologists) it should be quite safe. It's not like they're dumping the uranium rods into the ocean; they're (mostly) just trying to find a way to get rid of all that radioactive water. When diluted across the entire ocean it shouldn't have any impact on ecosystems and it shouldn't accumulate in predators (that we eat) like other types hazardous waste.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Even dumping uranium wouldn’t be so bad if you ground it up really finely and dispersed it thoroughly. There is a lot of uranium in the oceans naturally. A few kilos here and there is literally nothing in comparison, as long as it’s not in one spot.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  To be precise: there are about 4 billion tons of naturally dissolved uranium in the oceans currently.

derchu 6y ago

Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/

temp-dude-87844 6y ago

Yes, but this happens for everything, not just articles about nuclear waste. Lots of headlines sound bad devoid of a point of comparison, and lots of articles, reports, and statistics can be mistaken as alarming in isolation, without understanding the nuanced context of their domain. It's an unsolved problem in most societies to balance their desire to not withhold information from average citizens while avoiding widespread mistrust, outrage, or panic from those who lack the necessary background to place the information into context.