4 ms·

So significant amount of nuclear waste has been produced for what, 50 years? We know it's very dangerous and we now need to make sure it's safely contained on a

So significant amount of nuclear waste has been produced for what, 50 years? We know it's very dangerous and we now need to make sure it's safely contained on a time scale which if it ended today would start during stone age. And this is no problem because during the last 50 years no one has been harmed? That reasoning sounds incredible stupid to me.

shabier 5y ago
I suppose that parent comment is trying to say that given our history with nuclear waste, especially with the increasing caution, it hasn't caused any (significant) incident by the waste
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
  Yes? But given that our history with nuclear waste is a blip and we have to make sure it continue to works throughout wars, dictatorships and so on for the next 10 000 years, then how is the current track record relevant? It's akin to saying it's safe to eat led because I did it 5 minutes ago and so far I'm feeling perfectly fine. It's an argument which either is some form or propaganda or just stupid.
dev_tty01 5y ago
First, yes I agree that nuclear waste is an important issue that should be getting more attention than it does. However, this should not be thought of as a 10,000 or more year problem. Think back on the incredible expansion of knowledge in the last 100 years. Do we really believe that in another 100 years or so we won't have a way to safely reprocess this waste? This is a one or two hundred year problem at most. Can we not safely store two or three warehouses of material for 100 years? Thinking of this as a ten or fifty thousand year problem expresses a tremendous pessimism in the human ability to innovate.
- dahdum 5y ago
  > Thinking of this as a ten or fifty thousand year problem expresses a tremendous pessimism in the human ability to innovate. It’s quite fatalistic. The arguments are usually about protecting some future Stone Age human society from it. Seems like the assumption is civilization will crumble and human intelligence will decline so much that they wouldn’t be able to figure out or notice that some ancient waste they dug up is killing them.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  > Do we really believe that in another 100 years or so we won't have a way to safely reprocess this waste? We've been safely reprocessing this waste since the 1960s.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
  > Do we really believe that in another 100 years or so we won't have a way to safely reprocess this waste? I have no idea. People were supposed to transport themselves to work by the use of flying cars today. If you think that you can predict the future then please wait a minute while I laugh.
technobabbler 5y ago
I believe the argument is that it may be the lesser of many evils, not that it's harmless. I think it's a matter of evaluating our remaining realistic alternatives. Like: 1) Re-embrace nuclear power, do our best to safeguard the waste, knowing that someday (50? 100? 10,000 years?) from now, it will be an issue we'd have to deal with. It may be at a local, national, or global scale... hard to say. Could leak naturally, from unexpected disasters, terrorism, warfare, whatever. But it buys us some time, and can help slow down climatic impacts so the world has a few more years to adapt. It still won't be pretty. 2) Pretend like the world is suddenly going to get behind renewables and clean energy and drastically cut emissions AND recapture much of the carbon we emitted already. One, this isn't going to happen, and two, it's already too late. Best case, this makes the future decades a bit better for first world countries, but it's already too late for most of the rest of the world. 3) Do nothing: The mostly likely outcome, with or without more nuclear power. Life carries on, many humans will perish from climate change domino effects (draught, floods, desertification, habitat loss, whatever) and the resulting international instability. Many more other species will perish. The remaining life will adapt and carry on, and the world keeps going, but it's gonna be a painful few decades/centuries and our kids will hate us, but on the plus side, we've been saying that for decades now so it's already an intergenerational norm. Each generation leaves the world a little worse for the next, until enough humans die off, the planet recovers a little, and we do it all over again. Arguably embracing nuclear power is the least evil of these realistic remaining options, though it's highly unlikely enough people and nations could be convinced. People in the aggregate are phenomenally bad at evaluating risk, especially long-term, whether it's nuclear or climate impacts, so absolutely nothing will get done. But the advocacy isn't wrong in and of itself... nuclear is a measure of last resort, especially now that the IPCC has proven completely ineffective at persuading countries to take other meaningful measures. Nuclear can't save us, but it can lessen the pain to come a little bit, kinda like hospice for the planet.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  > I believe the argument is that it may be the lesser of many evils, not that it's harmless. If it's not harmless, perhaps you can point me to some legitimate harm it caused? Everyone, at this point, defers to predictions someone made decades ago that never panned out. If the reactor saves thousands of lives a year, and kills on average less than one half of one person in its operating span, then it's better than harmless, it causes negative harm Yes, nuclear power actually is better than harmless, statistically speaking Safeguarding the waste is neurotic nonsense that's talked about by people with no medical backgrounds who want to show how wise they are. People bathe in the stuff with no harm, to show how safe it is. If you can't name a single human being who's ever been harmed by it, then it's time to stop safeguarding it. The safety theater has extremely serious negative effects. All this fake safety discussion is why nuclear power didn't solve climate change in the 1980s. Really, genuinely, stop pretending a risk exists. Not a small one, not a comparative one, nothing. It really does not. I know it can be hard to accept, but you literally cannot show a single person in human history being harmed by this stuff. It's safer than bread. It's time to stop the theater. The planet is dying. Put down the fake wisdom.

shabier 5y ago

I suppose that parent comment is trying to say that given our history with nuclear waste, especially with the increasing caution, it hasn't caused any (significant) incident by the waste

tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
Yes? But given that our history with nuclear waste is a blip and we have to make sure it continue to works throughout wars, dictatorships and so on for the next 10 000 years, then how is the current track record relevant? It's akin to saying it's safe to eat led because I did it 5 minutes ago and so far I'm feeling perfectly fine. It's an argument which either is some form or propaganda or just stupid.

dev_tty01 5y ago

First, yes I agree that nuclear waste is an important issue that should be getting more attention than it does. However, this should not be thought of as a 10,000 or more year problem. Think back on the incredible expansion of knowledge in the last 100 years. Do we really believe that in another 100 years or so we won't have a way to safely reprocess this waste? This is a one or two hundred year problem at most. Can we not safely store two or three warehouses of material for 100 years? Thinking of this as a ten or fifty thousand year problem expresses a tremendous pessimism in the human ability to innovate.

dahdum 5y ago
> Thinking of this as a ten or fifty thousand year problem expresses a tremendous pessimism in the human ability to innovate. It’s quite fatalistic. The arguments are usually about protecting some future Stone Age human society from it. Seems like the assumption is civilization will crumble and human intelligence will decline so much that they wouldn’t be able to figure out or notice that some ancient waste they dug up is killing them.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> Do we really believe that in another 100 years or so we won't have a way to safely reprocess this waste? We've been safely reprocessing this waste since the 1960s.
tuwtuwtuwtuw 5y ago
> Do we really believe that in another 100 years or so we won't have a way to safely reprocess this waste? I have no idea. People were supposed to transport themselves to work by the use of flying cars today. If you think that you can predict the future then please wait a minute while I laugh.

technobabbler 5y ago

I believe the argument is that it may be the lesser of many evils, not that it's harmless. I think it's a matter of evaluating our remaining realistic alternatives. Like: 1) Re-embrace nuclear power, do our best to safeguard the waste, knowing that someday (50? 100? 10,000 years?) from now, it will be an issue we'd have to deal with. It may be at a local, national, or global scale... hard to say. Could leak naturally, from unexpected disasters, terrorism, warfare, whatever. But it buys us some time, and can help slow down climatic impacts so the world has a few more years to adapt. It still won't be pretty. 2) Pretend like the world is suddenly going to get behind renewables and clean energy and drastically cut emissions AND recapture much of the carbon we emitted already. One, this isn't going to happen, and two, it's already too late. Best case, this makes the future decades a bit better for first world countries, but it's already too late for most of the rest of the world. 3) Do nothing: The mostly likely outcome, with or without more nuclear power. Life carries on, many humans will perish from climate change domino effects (draught, floods, desertification, habitat loss, whatever) and the resulting international instability. Many more other species will perish. The remaining life will adapt and carry on, and the world keeps going, but it's gonna be a painful few decades/centuries and our kids will hate us, but on the plus side, we've been saying that for decades now so it's already an intergenerational norm. Each generation leaves the world a little worse for the next, until enough humans die off, the planet recovers a little, and we do it all over again. Arguably embracing nuclear power is the least evil of these realistic remaining options, though it's highly unlikely enough people and nations could be convinced. People in the aggregate are phenomenally bad at evaluating risk, especially long-term, whether it's nuclear or climate impacts, so absolutely nothing will get done. But the advocacy isn't wrong in and of itself... nuclear is a measure of last resort, especially now that the IPCC has proven completely ineffective at persuading countries to take other meaningful measures. Nuclear can't save us, but it can lessen the pain to come a little bit, kinda like hospice for the planet.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> I believe the argument is that it may be the lesser of many evils, not that it's harmless. If it's not harmless, perhaps you can point me to some legitimate harm it caused? Everyone, at this point, defers to predictions someone made decades ago that never panned out. If the reactor saves thousands of lives a year, and kills on average less than one half of one person in its operating span, then it's better than harmless, it causes negative harm Yes, nuclear power actually is better than harmless, statistically speaking Safeguarding the waste is neurotic nonsense that's talked about by people with no medical backgrounds who want to show how wise they are. People bathe in the stuff with no harm, to show how safe it is. If you can't name a single human being who's ever been harmed by it, then it's time to stop safeguarding it. The safety theater has extremely serious negative effects. All this fake safety discussion is why nuclear power didn't solve climate change in the 1980s. Really, genuinely, stop pretending a risk exists. Not a small one, not a comparative one, nothing. It really does not. I know it can be hard to accept, but you literally cannot show a single person in human history being harmed by this stuff. It's safer than bread. It's time to stop the theater. The planet is dying. Put down the fake wisdom.