3 ms·

>risk will increase as well Not even close to significant amount, compared to the certainty of a CO2 fueled Climate disaster. Not to mention modern reactors ar

>risk will increase as well Not even close to significant amount, compared to the certainty of a CO2 fueled Climate disaster. Not to mention modern reactors are passively safe.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
Climate disaster? To who? Humans? Mother Nature, on average isn't concerned. She adjusts. She evolves. History is clear on this. Radiation on the other hand is all but permanent. Climate disaster is a self-inflicted death blow by humans to humans.
- DougWebb 5y ago
  Radiation on the other hand is all but permanent. No it isn't. The purpose of a nuclear reactor is to take highly radioactive material found in nature, cook off a bunch of its radioactive energy (producing power in the process), and create less-radioactive material as a by-product. The waste that comes out at the end is less radioactive than the material we started with, albeit much more concentrated. But that makes it easier to handle and store, compared to the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are spewed out all over the place. If we dumped all that radioactive waste into the ocean (BAD IDEA), mother nature would dilute it for us and spread it out until it disappears into the natural background radiation. The drawback is that it'll be dangerous to everything that encounters it before it's diluted, so we can't do that.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    It’s also a bad idea because the “waste” might end up being useful/valuable to future generations. It’s only considered waste right now because we currently have no purpose for it.
    - merb 5y ago
      it might also be a death trap for them. I mean we bury high toxical waste deep inside a mountain and try to forget it?
      - simondotau 5y ago
        As opposed to the raw uranium that we dug out of the ground? I don’t recall nature storing that inside radiation-proof barrels. Also there’s the pesky fact of half-life. Ignorant anti-nuclear activists seem to think that nuclear waste is extremely dangerous and lasts for centuries. Nope. Nuclear material can either be imminently dangerous or have a centuries long half-life. It can’t be both.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    > The waste that comes out at the end is less radioactive than the material we started with, albeit much more concentrated. This is not true. Nuclear fuel not highly radioactive. Their use in nuclear reactors stems from the fact that they emit two neutrons when hit with one, producing a chain reaction. Their byproducts are much more radioactive than the original fuel.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Climate disaster is a self-inflicted death blow by humans to humans. As a human that's the particular sort of disaster I care about most.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    That's fair. I can emphasize :) But this idea of "we need to save the planet..." is a false narrative. It might even be distracted and overwhelming. The Truth is, we need to save ourselves from us. And in that context it's important not to overlook that context and continue with our hubris-based mindset. So yeah, nuclear may or may not be a wise choice. Furthermore, if it isn't enough and we come up short on CC then we'll have at least two high priority lonlong term problems to deal with.

>risk will increase as well Not even close to significant amount, compared to the certainty of a CO2 fueled Climate disaster. Not to mention modern reactors are passively safe.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

Climate disaster? To who? Humans? Mother Nature, on average isn't concerned. She adjusts. She evolves. History is clear on this. Radiation on the other hand is all but permanent. Climate disaster is a self-inflicted death blow by humans to humans.

DougWebb 5y ago
Radiation on the other hand is all but permanent. No it isn't. The purpose of a nuclear reactor is to take highly radioactive material found in nature, cook off a bunch of its radioactive energy (producing power in the process), and create less-radioactive material as a by-product. The waste that comes out at the end is less radioactive than the material we started with, albeit much more concentrated. But that makes it easier to handle and store, compared to the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are spewed out all over the place. If we dumped all that radioactive waste into the ocean (BAD IDEA), mother nature would dilute it for us and spread it out until it disappears into the natural background radiation. The drawback is that it'll be dangerous to everything that encounters it before it's diluted, so we can't do that.
- simondotau 5y ago
  It’s also a bad idea because the “waste” might end up being useful/valuable to future generations. It’s only considered waste right now because we currently have no purpose for it.
  - merb 5y ago
    it might also be a death trap for them. I mean we bury high toxical waste deep inside a mountain and try to forget it?
    - simondotau 5y ago
      As opposed to the raw uranium that we dug out of the ground? I don’t recall nature storing that inside radiation-proof barrels. Also there’s the pesky fact of half-life. Ignorant anti-nuclear activists seem to think that nuclear waste is extremely dangerous and lasts for centuries. Nope. Nuclear material can either be imminently dangerous or have a centuries long half-life. It can’t be both.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  > The waste that comes out at the end is less radioactive than the material we started with, albeit much more concentrated. This is not true. Nuclear fuel not highly radioactive. Their use in nuclear reactors stems from the fact that they emit two neutrons when hit with one, producing a chain reaction. Their byproducts are much more radioactive than the original fuel.
onion2k 5y ago
Climate disaster is a self-inflicted death blow by humans to humans. As a human that's the particular sort of disaster I care about most.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  That's fair. I can emphasize :) But this idea of "we need to save the planet..." is a false narrative. It might even be distracted and overwhelming. The Truth is, we need to save ourselves from us. And in that context it's important not to overlook that context and continue with our hubris-based mindset. So yeah, nuclear may or may not be a wise choice. Furthermore, if it isn't enough and we come up short on CC then we'll have at least two high priority lonlong term problems to deal with.