3 ms·

When antinuclear activists constitute 90% of the population, the other people start to be called differently :( . Despite attempts on HN to help me, I still do

by avmich 5y ago

When antinuclear activists constitute 90% of the population, the other people start to be called differently :( . Despite attempts on HN to help me, I still don't see a good way to deal with nuclear waste, which would be well explained.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
Why not store the waste in Pripyat? Chernobyl already has dedicated personnel and monitoring equipment for radiation control. The area is off limits to settlement and it's not like there are NIMBY concerns. Nuclear plants already store their waste on-site, which means the footprint of the waste is small. The exclusion zone is large.
jcfrei 5y ago
It's all well explained - at this point you don't want to understand the solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository I've cited this quote before: "Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as result of anti-nuclear campaigns and lack of knowledge." It's unfortunately the case that large parts of the public (in some countries at least) prefer banning a reliable and sustainable energy source rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot. The way I see it is that if human civilization degenerates so much that it loses track of where and what are nuclear waste deposits, there will be much bigger sources of death and misery than occasional radiation induced cancer.
- avmich 5y ago
  A good explanation is something different than repeating that experts agree on a particular page on the Internet. For question this controversial, I'd prefer to see a list of arguments for and contra, with best points from either side, which would cover all reasonable arguments and some unreasonable ones, with the decision left to the reader - otherwise expert opinion may seem not enough grounded. For me, I believe I have enough basic knowledge to decide, I just don't see a good analysis anywhere. I've talked with an expert too, a friend - and while he's for nuclear power, some questions he couldn't answer well. So, Wikipedia page doesn't seem enough - and I don't think I don't want to understand the solution.

by avmich 5y ago

BitwiseFool 5y ago

Why not store the waste in Pripyat? Chernobyl already has dedicated personnel and monitoring equipment for radiation control. The area is off limits to settlement and it's not like there are NIMBY concerns. Nuclear plants already store their waste on-site, which means the footprint of the waste is small. The exclusion zone is large.

jcfrei 5y ago

It's all well explained - at this point you don't want to understand the solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository I've cited this quote before: "Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as result of anti-nuclear campaigns and lack of knowledge." It's unfortunately the case that large parts of the public (in some countries at least) prefer banning a reliable and sustainable energy source rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot.

xyzzyz 5y ago
> rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot. The way I see it is that if human civilization degenerates so much that it loses track of where and what are nuclear waste deposits, there will be much bigger sources of death and misery than occasional radiation induced cancer.
avmich 5y ago
A good explanation is something different than repeating that experts agree on a particular page on the Internet. For question this controversial, I'd prefer to see a list of arguments for and contra, with best points from either side, which would cover all reasonable arguments and some unreasonable ones, with the decision left to the reader - otherwise expert opinion may seem not enough grounded. For me, I believe I have enough basic knowledge to decide, I just don't see a good analysis anywhere. I've talked with an expert too, a friend - and while he's for nuclear power, some questions he couldn't answer well. So, Wikipedia page doesn't seem enough - and I don't think I don't want to understand the solution.