4 ms·

It's stupid to fret about nuclear waste. All plants, worldwide over all human history, for 20% of the power production of the entire planet, 100% green, have p

It's stupid to fret about nuclear waste. All plants, worldwide over all human history, for 20% of the power production of the entire planet, 100% green, have produced less than one half of one football field of barrels. We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Thanks to mining byproducts, nuclear produces less and lower level radioactive waste than solar or wind Zero humans in history have died from nuclear waste It's just something scared people say to sound like they know something important

krageon 5y ago
> less than one half of one football field This is not a useful metric, except to impress folks that know almost nothing about the field. Even then it is misleading, because the storage requirements are so strenuous that it cannot be assumed to be done well. > We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Instead, we will have radioactive children in 50 years. > Zero humans in history have died from nuclear waste Quite simply a fabrication.
- exabrial 5y ago
  If you're going to have strong opinions, at least be educated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
tucosan 5y ago
In the meantime, a barebones crew operates Chernobyl infrastructure, while the sacrophagus was shelled by Russian troops. Europes nuclear power Zaporizhzhia plant is surrounded by Russian troops and sustained damage: > At 11:28pm local time on the 3 March 2022, a column of 10 Russian armored vehicles and two tanks cautiously approached the Power Plant.[18][19][20] The action commenced at 12:48am on the 4 March when Ukraine forces fired anti tank missiles and Russian forces responded with a variety of weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades.[19] During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar
- Daishiman 5y ago
  Still better than losing half of the biosphere due to climate change.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    Could be an argument with nuclear as the sole "source" (way to produce electricity), but there are many other ones.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  > In the meantime, a barebones crew operates Chernobyl infrastructure, while the sacrophagus was shelled by Russian troops. and even under these conditions, once again, zero deaths the point you're trying to make actually works against you
  - gruturo 5y ago
    > and even under these conditions, once again, zero deaths I agree with your point, but for the record there's apparently been one death due to radiation (and possibly more to come): After the fighting was over, the russian soldiers seem to have camped in the Red Forest (absolutely the most contaminated area after the reactor structure itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest ), dug trenches and eaten local animals. And continued doing so for a month.
    - kataklasm 5y ago
      Most (if not all) nuclear scientists and radiation experts I've seen tslking about this say this is a wrong assumption. Cheryl Rofer, former nuclear scientist, made a napkin calculation and suggested it would need about 57 years of camping in the hottest (= most irradiated) parts of the red forest to acquire ARS (acute radiation syndrome). Even if the digging and kicking up dust there elevated the radioactivity levels, it would take a hell of a lot to get from 57 years to one month. Keep in mind that the most radioactive snd thus dangerous elements also decay the quickest, because of course both properties stem from the same thing, redioactive decay. The more dangerous the quicker it's gone.

krageon 5y ago

> less than one half of one football field This is not a useful metric, except to impress folks that know almost nothing about the field. Even then it is misleading, because the storage requirements are so strenuous that it cannot be assumed to be done well. > We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Instead, we will have radioactive children in 50 years. > Zero humans in history have died from nuclear waste Quite simply a fabrication.

exabrial 5y ago
If you're going to have strong opinions, at least be educated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

tucosan 5y ago

In the meantime, a barebones crew operates Chernobyl infrastructure, while the sacrophagus was shelled by Russian troops. Europes nuclear power Zaporizhzhia plant is surrounded by Russian troops and sustained damage: > At 11:28pm local time on the 3 March 2022, a column of 10 Russian armored vehicles and two tanks cautiously approached the Power Plant.[18][19][20] The action commenced at 12:48am on the 4 March when Ukraine forces fired anti tank missiles and Russian forces responded with a variety of weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades.[19] During approximately two hours of heavy fighting a fire broke out in a training facility outside of the main complex, which was extinguished by 6:20am,[21][22] though other sections surrounding the plant sustained damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Enerhodar

Daishiman 5y ago
Still better than losing half of the biosphere due to climate change.
- natmaka 5y ago
  Could be an argument with nuclear as the sole "source" (way to produce electricity), but there are many other ones.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> In the meantime, a barebones crew operates Chernobyl infrastructure, while the sacrophagus was shelled by Russian troops. and even under these conditions, once again, zero deaths the point you're trying to make actually works against you
- gruturo 5y ago
  > and even under these conditions, once again, zero deaths I agree with your point, but for the record there's apparently been one death due to radiation (and possibly more to come): After the fighting was over, the russian soldiers seem to have camped in the Red Forest (absolutely the most contaminated area after the reactor structure itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest ), dug trenches and eaten local animals. And continued doing so for a month.
  - kataklasm 5y ago
    Most (if not all) nuclear scientists and radiation experts I've seen tslking about this say this is a wrong assumption. Cheryl Rofer, former nuclear scientist, made a napkin calculation and suggested it would need about 57 years of camping in the hottest (= most irradiated) parts of the red forest to acquire ARS (acute radiation syndrome). Even if the digging and kicking up dust there elevated the radioactivity levels, it would take a hell of a lot to get from 57 years to one month. Keep in mind that the most radioactive snd thus dangerous elements also decay the quickest, because of course both properties stem from the same thing, redioactive decay. The more dangerous the quicker it's gone.