4 ms·
>the long-term benefit should be what it is held up against. how about the long term risk? we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean a
by nimbius 5y ago
>the long-term benefit should be what it is held up against.
how about the long term risk? we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean and in our bodies let alone responsibly harness the atom. we're talking about a waste product that does not cease to create a danger for hundreds of years at minimum. Reactor 4 at chernobyl is predicted to be "safe" in 20,000 years and before you say thats an exception id like to remind you that ALL high level nuclear waste has a cooldown of tens of thousands of years and it is routinely generated in the pursuit of the electron today.
The Roman empire only lasted 1500 years. these nuclear byproducts last so long that modern scholars cannot unilaterally agree on a simple means of warning the future inhabitants of whatever society exists, let alone passing on any tips or tricks for processing or salvaging these lethal artifacts.
we are talking about a waste product that outlives not only written but spoken language and dozens if not hundreds of civilizations and the stalwart of the atom --the United States-- still couldnt even manage to get Yucca mouuntain together as a disposal ground after two decades.
nuclear isotopes do not have a rate of return. they do not care about profit or equity or economies and will without remoerse kill you all if you forget them.
waste is currently stored in large pools at your local nuclear plant that require constant cooling. once these sites are inoperable they will require the care of generations for millennia before with a clear conscience you can say 'nuclear power was worth it'. that the atom will be taught as a religion is less far fetched a premise to a Fallout game when you realize in 12,000 years the only means of conveying the lethality of our hubris will be as such.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThis is anti-science fear mongering for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, we need to consider the risks of NOT investing in nuclear, which are that we continue to burn fossil fuels while we pray for a solution for the renewable storage problem. This is a civilization-ending risk by which the worst nuclear disaster pales in comparison. > we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean and in our bodies let alone responsibly harness the atom. Plastics are a problem because billions of people throw their trash haphazardly into the environment. As long as we don’t do that with nuclear waste, we’re fine. Yes, nuclear waste takes a long time to decay, but the risk is inversely correlated with the time it takes to decay. Something with a long half-life by definition emits low rates of radiation. Moreover, nuclear waste is very dense, so we can easily manage a lot of it (and we already have to manage some of it anyway). Lastly, we already have the answer for managing nuclear waste—deep geologic storage.
- nullc 5y agoI agree. There is a lot of uranium ore in the ground already, much of it radioactive enough that it will absolutely cause illness if you live or work in its proximity (not even counting the radon it gives off). Any analysis of the dangers of long term disposal shouldn't concern itself with risks comparable to that given by rich natural deposits of radioactive materials.
- baybal2 5y agoLong term risk? The fall of Western world? We seen it first hand in these last 2 years how hard it was for the government to control the lowermost layers of society, even when we talk about a life, and death matter, just because they can't get a hamburger, and toilet paper. Now, imagine talking about rationing electricity, or fuel for F150s