7 ms·

> enormous risk even if the probability of catastrophe is very low. That's not really how probability works. If the probability of catastrophie is low then it

> enormous risk even if the probability of catastrophe is very low. That's not really how probability works. If the probability of catastrophie is low then it's not an enormous risk. Honestly I think the risk of nuclear storage is really low. Most challenges are focused om how to keep it safe for thousands of years. The next several hundred years are no problem.

KMnO4 5y ago
Risk = probability * loss So even though the probability is very very low, the loss (consequence) is extremely high (say an order of magnitude) which makes this a high risk.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  What are the risks here more exactly? Yes, there is nuclear waste buried... sooooooo... what can happen?
  - dekhn 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin... More seriously, there are a wide range of problems associated with long term waste storage, from known knowns to unknown unknowns. Some of the risks can't even be reasonably anticipated.
    - admax88qqq 5y ago
      You can claim unknown unknowns for literally anything and claim it's high risk as a result. There are unknown unknowns about 5G, therefore it's too risky to build and use.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Even they were storing large volumes of waste, then I assume they'd be non-trivial risk during the transport before the waste was buried.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    The most obvious danger is ground water contamination. That already happened at some locations where mines where used as a temporary storage. Some have to be salvaged which will cost billions.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The potential loss here is not extremely high. Crack open a physics textbook. Waste can either be highly energetic or long lived. You can't pick both. And I think it's fair to say that unless they dump it down an active volcano it won't get spewed airborne Chernobyl style. Nuclear waste isn't particularly noteworthy compared to all sorts of other nasty chemicals that humanity stores in large volume.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I think the failure mode that's more likely (although I am not an expert, I've had to take extensive nuclear safety training for biology, and more exponential decay calculations than I care to admit) is that the water table would rise or there is a large seismic event and a population would be exposed to moderate-level radioactive waste for an extended period of time (leading to higher rates of cancer and other diseases). However, there is not a lot of solid data on moderate-level radioactive waste with long exposures. Sort of like the cross product of Fukushima reactor and Flint Michigan. I agree with the point about nuclear waste often not being as bad as other chemical waste (or even storage/processing of nonwaste chemical materials). The issue is that in people minds, the term nuclear triggers an innate dread best described as "contamination of our precious bodily fluid".
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Nuclear waste processing just dumps it in the ocean and cancer rates are quite elevated around the regions they operate. Sure, you could disallow dumping liquid waste like it was done with barrels. That isn't done for economic reasons.
JauntTrooper 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear waste actually became a resource in a few hundred years as we discover new ways to utilize it.
- dekhn 5y ago
  as long as you're cool with breeder reactors, the waste is already a resource, I think.
- lkbm 5y ago
  The idea that we have to solve the problem for 100,000 years has always seemed crazy to me. If we can store it for 100 years, we can be fairly confident that technology will have advanced to the point where then dealing with it for the remaining 99,900 years will be relatively trivial. If not, we hold on for 200 more years. 1700->2000 was quite a leap, and if 2000->2300 isn't enough that we can handle some nuclear waste by then, we've got bigger problems. We're merely hedging against the risk of catastrophic societal collapse causing us to lose track of the waste and lose our understanding of radiation. But this is the only area where we seem to give a hoot about the far future, which truly makes me think it's just a rationalization of "I don't like nuclear power", not a serious concern.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    I think there's a point you may have overlooked: The outside of any container holding radioactive materials becomes more difficult and dangerous as time passes. Even a sealed container. Storing containers accessibly but yet securely and designing them such that they remain safely sealed for 100 or 200 or 300 years, yet can be handled then, is a very big problem. AIUI a more difficult problem than finding stable rock that's been undisturbed for a long time.
dekhn 5y ago
Sorry- in yourt terminology, not "enormous risk", but "enormous consequence". So: low probability of problem, but prolem has large consequences -> small risk in your terminology. Fair enough.
mirekrusin 5y ago
Are we sure? What about terrorist acts?
- Arnt 5y ago
  Try to think of one. It's not simple. For example, someone who has a bomb big enough to blast their way in surely has better targets.

KMnO4 5y ago

Risk = probability * loss So even though the probability is very very low, the loss (consequence) is extremely high (say an order of magnitude) which makes this a high risk.

RealityVoid 5y ago
What are the risks here more exactly? Yes, there is nuclear waste buried... sooooooo... what can happen?
- dekhn 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin... More seriously, there are a wide range of problems associated with long term waste storage, from known knowns to unknown unknowns. Some of the risks can't even be reasonably anticipated.
  - admax88qqq 5y ago
    You can claim unknown unknowns for literally anything and claim it's high risk as a result. There are unknown unknowns about 5G, therefore it's too risky to build and use.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Even they were storing large volumes of waste, then I assume they'd be non-trivial risk during the transport before the waste was buried.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  The most obvious danger is ground water contamination. That already happened at some locations where mines where used as a temporary storage. Some have to be salvaged which will cost billions.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The potential loss here is not extremely high. Crack open a physics textbook. Waste can either be highly energetic or long lived. You can't pick both. And I think it's fair to say that unless they dump it down an active volcano it won't get spewed airborne Chernobyl style. Nuclear waste isn't particularly noteworthy compared to all sorts of other nasty chemicals that humanity stores in large volume.
- dekhn 5y ago
  I think the failure mode that's more likely (although I am not an expert, I've had to take extensive nuclear safety training for biology, and more exponential decay calculations than I care to admit) is that the water table would rise or there is a large seismic event and a population would be exposed to moderate-level radioactive waste for an extended period of time (leading to higher rates of cancer and other diseases). However, there is not a lot of solid data on moderate-level radioactive waste with long exposures. Sort of like the cross product of Fukushima reactor and Flint Michigan. I agree with the point about nuclear waste often not being as bad as other chemical waste (or even storage/processing of nonwaste chemical materials). The issue is that in people minds, the term nuclear triggers an innate dread best described as "contamination of our precious bodily fluid".
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Nuclear waste processing just dumps it in the ocean and cancer rates are quite elevated around the regions they operate. Sure, you could disallow dumping liquid waste like it was done with barrels. That isn't done for economic reasons.

JauntTrooper 5y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear waste actually became a resource in a few hundred years as we discover new ways to utilize it.

dekhn 5y ago
as long as you're cool with breeder reactors, the waste is already a resource, I think.
lkbm 5y ago
The idea that we have to solve the problem for 100,000 years has always seemed crazy to me. If we can store it for 100 years, we can be fairly confident that technology will have advanced to the point where then dealing with it for the remaining 99,900 years will be relatively trivial. If not, we hold on for 200 more years. 1700->2000 was quite a leap, and if 2000->2300 isn't enough that we can handle some nuclear waste by then, we've got bigger problems. We're merely hedging against the risk of catastrophic societal collapse causing us to lose track of the waste and lose our understanding of radiation. But this is the only area where we seem to give a hoot about the far future, which truly makes me think it's just a rationalization of "I don't like nuclear power", not a serious concern.
- Arnt 5y ago
  I think there's a point you may have overlooked: The outside of any container holding radioactive materials becomes more difficult and dangerous as time passes. Even a sealed container. Storing containers accessibly but yet securely and designing them such that they remain safely sealed for 100 or 200 or 300 years, yet can be handled then, is a very big problem. AIUI a more difficult problem than finding stable rock that's been undisturbed for a long time.

dekhn 5y ago

Sorry- in yourt terminology, not "enormous risk", but "enormous consequence". So: low probability of problem, but prolem has large consequences -> small risk in your terminology. Fair enough.

mirekrusin 5y ago

Are we sure? What about terrorist acts?

Arnt 5y ago
Try to think of one. It's not simple. For example, someone who has a bomb big enough to blast their way in surely has better targets.