3 ms·
Interesting that years later the sensationalist doomer blogs[1] turn out to be correct[2], in contrast with the common obviously false mantra of "there is no nu
by bob29 5y ago
Interesting that years later the sensationalist doomer blogs[1] turn out to be correct[2], in contrast with the common obviously false mantra of "there is no nuclear waste problem/safety issues"
[1] https://cuttingthegordianknot.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/houston-we-have-a-problem-no-known-technology-to-deal-with-fukushima/ https://cuttingthegordianknot.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/houst...
[2] https://earther.gizmodo.com/japan-s-new-fukushima-plan-dumping-radioactive-wastewa-1846673409 https://earther.gizmodo.com/japan-s-new-fukushima-plan-dumpi...
- Gibbon1 5y agoI remember getting bagged on at the time for saying it was going to take 30-50 years to clean up Fukushima. We're 35 years out from Chernobyl. I think Three Mile Island took 15 years. And now 10 year out with Fukushima.
- Manuel_D 5y agoCorrect in the mere fact that nuclear waste is being released into the ocean. Still incorrect in the sense that this is a significant issue worth worrying about. The waste mixes with the ocean water and dilutes to safe levels. The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom both dumped nuclear waste into the ocean for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste#:~:text=Mainly%20at%20the%20east%20coast,including%20reactors%20and%20spent%20fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_....
- user-the-name 5y agoFirst, nobody said that. That is a strawman you made up. Second, tritium is an extremely harmless radioactive isotope, probably the least harmful one there is. Releasing water containing tritium is absolute and definitely completely harmless as well, and a good decision.