4 ms·

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide... This disagrees wi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide... This disagrees with your assertion that “…in human history, zero people have been harmed by nuclear waste.” The page lists waste incidents going back to the 50s.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
As far as I can see, there isn't a single waste incident anywhere in that list. It kind of looks like you googled for something, didn't read it, and started arguing. Looks like the only thing even mentioned there is that in the 1950s, there was an incident, and someone who isn't a doctor made an estimate that some cancer deaths might have happened later. Amusingly, it's the same person who predicted 20 million deaths from Chernobyl, and still insists they happened and are being covered up. Can you tell me which specific disagreement you see there? I'd like to think you're not listening to the guy who says there were three secret holocausts worth of death in the 1990s.
- ozim 5y ago
  I agree, list does not indicate anything about waste unless it is "metal waste".
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    Typical anti-nuke: pretends they've found contrary evidence, hasn't Three different people in this thread told me to ignore the physicists, the history, and the real world evidence, and to pretend that what we were waiting on was the half-life of uranium It's really embarrassing that HN isn't able to reject these things successfully. This is anti-vax level thinking
booi 5y ago
I agree that's a pretty strong statement to make but most of the accidents didn't have anything to do with the "waste" and more with the fuel and reactors. I would argue we're not talking about a lot of people though, compared to the billions that climate change is going to affect not to mention the millions that are already affected by pollution and other carbon-based energy production effects.
fastaguy88 5y ago
This seems to be a very broad definition of 'nuclear waste'. When I search for "waste" on that page, I find one incident, involving a waste furnace explosion (not the waste itself) and a second one in Russia in 1957 where a large amount of waste was released with no immediate fatalities, but possibly 200 later excess deaths. And, as the page points out, coal burning power plants emit (with little or no long-term "containment") 100-times as much radioactive waste. The argument against nuclear power is safe disposal of the "waste", but, as the OP pointed out, it is hard to find any examples of deaths because of nuclear waste (there certainly have been more deaths because of accidents, but even here, coal mining/burning/waste disposal clearly is much higher risk, even ignoring CO2 output).
- oriolid 5y ago
  Which accident are you referring to? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster refers a source that claims 8015 deaths and no comparison to coal-fired power plants. Of course, one could argue that the accident was related to processing spent fuel into nuclear weapons material and would not have happened if it had just been buried. Or that it is should not be called waste if it's treated as raw material to something else.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    > refers a source that claims 8015 deaths It says in literally the very next sentence that no evidence of that is known, and more recent studies put the number between 45 and 55. Please have some rudimentary skepticism.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

As far as I can see, there isn't a single waste incident anywhere in that list. It kind of looks like you googled for something, didn't read it, and started arguing. Looks like the only thing even mentioned there is that in the 1950s, there was an incident, and someone who isn't a doctor made an estimate that some cancer deaths might have happened later. Amusingly, it's the same person who predicted 20 million deaths from Chernobyl, and still insists they happened and are being covered up. Can you tell me which specific disagreement you see there? I'd like to think you're not listening to the guy who says there were three secret holocausts worth of death in the 1990s.

ozim 5y ago
I agree, list does not indicate anything about waste unless it is "metal waste".
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Typical anti-nuke: pretends they've found contrary evidence, hasn't Three different people in this thread told me to ignore the physicists, the history, and the real world evidence, and to pretend that what we were waiting on was the half-life of uranium It's really embarrassing that HN isn't able to reject these things successfully. This is anti-vax level thinking

booi 5y ago

I agree that's a pretty strong statement to make but most of the accidents didn't have anything to do with the "waste" and more with the fuel and reactors. I would argue we're not talking about a lot of people though, compared to the billions that climate change is going to affect not to mention the millions that are already affected by pollution and other carbon-based energy production effects.

fastaguy88 5y ago

This seems to be a very broad definition of 'nuclear waste'. When I search for "waste" on that page, I find one incident, involving a waste furnace explosion (not the waste itself) and a second one in Russia in 1957 where a large amount of waste was released with no immediate fatalities, but possibly 200 later excess deaths. And, as the page points out, coal burning power plants emit (with little or no long-term "containment") 100-times as much radioactive waste. The argument against nuclear power is safe disposal of the "waste", but, as the OP pointed out, it is hard to find any examples of deaths because of nuclear waste (there certainly have been more deaths because of accidents, but even here, coal mining/burning/waste disposal clearly is much higher risk, even ignoring CO2 output).

oriolid 5y ago
Which accident are you referring to? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster refers a source that claims 8015 deaths and no comparison to coal-fired power plants. Of course, one could argue that the accident was related to processing spent fuel into nuclear weapons material and would not have happened if it had just been buried. Or that it is should not be called waste if it's treated as raw material to something else.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  > refers a source that claims 8015 deaths It says in literally the very next sentence that no evidence of that is known, and more recent studies put the number between 45 and 55. Please have some rudimentary skepticism.