4 ms·

We already have nuclear sites such as Hanford leaking radioactivity into local water systems. We have Rocky Flats poisoning whole communities. While these are t

by Klinky 5y ago

We already have nuclear sites such as Hanford leaking radioactivity into local water systems. We have Rocky Flats poisoning whole communities. While these are the aftermath of poorly managed nuclear weapons projects, it's testament to our extremely poor handling and the extreme costs of nuclear waste. Regarding power generation, Fukushima has dumped gobs of radioactivity into the ocean. Even reprocessing facilities like La Hague release radioactivity into the channel which then flows into the North Sea. The problem with just letting radioactivity leak into the environment(and those who claim "fewer people have died from nuclear than any other energy source"), is that the effects of radiation contamination may not be felt for decades, in things like early cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects, and be hard to trace back to their original source. Radioactivity is extremely dangerous, this is a well-known fact, and to not acknowledge the great challenges around managing nuclear projects and the waste they generate, just reduces the credibility of nuclear apologists. Nuclear could be done safely and effectively, it's just very very very expensive to do so and thus corners get cut, and we end up socializing the costs into haphazard sites, which will cost billions of dollars to maintain over the next few decades alone, and we all know nuclear waste will stick around much longer than that.

Accujack 5y ago
>Fukushima has dumped gobs of radioactivity into the ocean. You mean the Japanese government has. That aside, total radioactivity emitted by Fukushima's leaks stands at about 35 PBq if you count the amount released into the sea. Total radioactivity released by coal burning power plants world wide is ~200 PBq. Annually. Fukushima grabs headlines, but it's releasing far less radioactivity than the ongoing operation of coal burning power plants. >the effects of radiation contamination may not be felt for decades, in things like early cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects, and be hard to trace back to their original source. Especially since Fukushima is statistically unlikely to be the source, since so much more radioactivity comes from elsewhere. >Radioactivity is extremely dangerous, this is a well-known fact, Radioactivity is completely natural. It can be dangerous, but so can fire if you don't know how to handle it. >and to not acknowledge the great challenges around managing nuclear projects and the waste they generate Nuclear power plants generate only a small fraction of the waste that things like bomb making generate. The largest challenges for managing it are political because of the prejudice of the public against it.
- Klinky 5y ago
  >You mean the Japanese government has. Literally the only way to "save" Fukushima was to dump sea water on its melting down reactors in its initial days/weeks/months. I also don't get your deflection, as if you're insinuating the Japanese government is somehow a source of radioactivity. Actually it's coming from the melted down reactors. If you want to blame poor management as the cause of the nuclear diaster, unfortunately that seems to be a trend in the nuclear industry, so it doesn't help your argument. >Radioactivity is completely natural. Not in the concentration needed to run a nuclear reactor. Many mines are operating U-235 concentrations that are a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Some of those operations use methods similar to fracking to extract uranium, and are not clean. There are some select high-grade mines, but unsurprisingly, the high radiation levels require special precautions and heavy reliance on automation due to the deadly hazards radiation poses to personnel. >The largest challenges for managing it are political because of the prejudice of the public against it. Nope, it's a hard technical challenge that requires vast resources to solve. It is not as simple as nuclear apologist think it is. I would like to see it come to fruition, but as a major government project, where we stop the charade of it being a viable business model for private industry.

by Klinky 5y ago

Accujack 5y ago

>Fukushima has dumped gobs of radioactivity into the ocean. You mean the Japanese government has. That aside, total radioactivity emitted by Fukushima's leaks stands at about 35 PBq if you count the amount released into the sea. Total radioactivity released by coal burning power plants world wide is ~200 PBq. Annually. Fukushima grabs headlines, but it's releasing far less radioactivity than the ongoing operation of coal burning power plants. >the effects of radiation contamination may not be felt for decades, in things like early cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects, and be hard to trace back to their original source. Especially since Fukushima is statistically unlikely to be the source, since so much more radioactivity comes from elsewhere. >Radioactivity is extremely dangerous, this is a well-known fact, Radioactivity is completely natural. It can be dangerous, but so can fire if you don't know how to handle it. >and to not acknowledge the great challenges around managing nuclear projects and the waste they generate Nuclear power plants generate only a small fraction of the waste that things like bomb making generate. The largest challenges for managing it are political because of the prejudice of the public against it.

Klinky 5y ago
>You mean the Japanese government has. Literally the only way to "save" Fukushima was to dump sea water on its melting down reactors in its initial days/weeks/months. I also don't get your deflection, as if you're insinuating the Japanese government is somehow a source of radioactivity. Actually it's coming from the melted down reactors. If you want to blame poor management as the cause of the nuclear diaster, unfortunately that seems to be a trend in the nuclear industry, so it doesn't help your argument. >Radioactivity is completely natural. Not in the concentration needed to run a nuclear reactor. Many mines are operating U-235 concentrations that are a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Some of those operations use methods similar to fracking to extract uranium, and are not clean. There are some select high-grade mines, but unsurprisingly, the high radiation levels require special precautions and heavy reliance on automation due to the deadly hazards radiation poses to personnel. >The largest challenges for managing it are political because of the prejudice of the public against it. Nope, it's a hard technical challenge that requires vast resources to solve. It is not as simple as nuclear apologist think it is. I would like to see it come to fruition, but as a major government project, where we stop the charade of it being a viable business model for private industry.