4 ms·
The fact that your solution for long-term storage isn't even operational yet renders the confidence in your line of arguments ad absurdum. The fact that you try
by hans1729 5y ago
The fact that your solution for long-term storage isn't even operational yet renders the confidence in your line of arguments ad absurdum. The fact that you try to defuse the GPs concerns with short-sentenced bullet points says it all - you're dismissive and strongly opinionated, while the concerned are asking very valid questions. That's bad intellectual culture, to say the least.
- Manuel_D 5y agoFinland has operated the VLJ repository in Olkiluoto since the 1990s [1]. The linked facility is an additional one being constructed (also in Olkiluoto) to accommodate future waste. There's also a site in Korea that's operational: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Low_and_Intermediate_Level_Radioactive_Waste_Disposal_Center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Low_and_Intermediat... These examples are easily obtained via Google: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository The risks posed by nuclear waste is vastly overstated. A little known fact: the USSR and the United Kingdom dumped most of their nuclear waste into the ocean until the 1990s [2]. There were no adverse affects observed due to this dumping. Yet we're worried about waste buried in bedrock? 1. https://www.tvo.fi/en/index/production/nuclearwastemanagement/operationalwaste.html https://www.tvo.fi/en/index/production/nuclearwastemanagemen... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactiv...