3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoNuclear 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.