4 ms·

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 thi

by 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.

by 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.