4 ms·
Maybe the problem with the "green" nuclear energy is that we still do not have a final waste site for it. This stuff may not be much in terms of size, but it is
by AnonCoward4 5y ago
Maybe the problem with the "green" nuclear energy is that we still do not have a final waste site for it. This stuff may not be much in terms of size, but it is bad for hundreds of thousands of years and can contaminate a lot of water.
> I mean, what's the point of a "nuclear waste free Earth" if our civilization collapses due to climate change?
That is a bit panic-fuelled and frankly even religious, while completely ignoring the immediate threat of radiation, which cannot be reversed for hundreds of thousands of years.
PS.: Climate change is going to happen whatever we do. This happened even before we existed.
- cesarb 5y ago> while completely ignoring the immediate threat of radiation, which cannot be reversed for hundreds of thousands of years. Waiting hundreds of thousands of years is the simplest way to reverse the "threat of radiation". Each radioactive isotope has a half-life; if you wait ten half-lives, the "threat of radiation" is reduced by a thousand times, and the isotopes with very long half-lives aren't that radioactive to start with (roughly simplifying, the shorter the half-life, the more intense the radiation).