3 ms·

> even if every nuclear power plant on the planet were shut-down today, "nuclear" would still be here to stay for at least a century or two. Is this really a p

> even if every nuclear power plant on the planet were shut-down today, "nuclear" would still be here to stay for at least a century or two. Is this really a problem, though?

denton-scratch 4y ago
Well, I think nuclear waste is a problem. It's highly toxic, and there's no process for detoxifying it. It has to be "got rid of", somehow, or put somewhere that humans can't accidentally encounter it. And it remains dangerous roughly forever, in terms of the span of a human civilisation. 200 years is sorta manageable, I suppose, if you have the resources and longevity of a nation state. You can bury it under a mountain, and set a battalion of armed orcs to guard it. But nation states can change their minds; whether the cost of hiring those orcs is money well-spent is a political decision, and the politicians responsible may not have "the long view" in mind. I think nuclear power can be done safely; but I don't think that's possible as long as the task is overseen by profit-making corporations or short-termist governments. And I don't see who else can do it.
- MagnumOpus 4y ago
  People would be less suspicious of your motives if you would spread the same amount of panic about coal industry ash ponds -- where arsenic and heavy metals will be lethal forever rather than just for thousands of years -- or mine tailings dams which burst with alarming regularity killing more people and devastating more square milege annually than nuclear waste ever did or will. As is, it seems that for you, dangerous waste is a deal breaker for something you are ideologically opposed to, but perfectly fine in other areas.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    I am from the UK. Our coal industry was almost completely destroyed by Margaret Thatcher. For many years, the notion of digging new pits has not been on the agenda. There is now a pit waiting for planning permission, but I don't think it will succeed (I hope not). Meanwhile plans to get some foreign company to build giant new nukes here are pressing ahead. So yeah, my focus is on the imminent threat that I can do something about, not on old mistakes that were made before I was born, that I can't do much about. > something you are ideologically opposed to You're the second person that has accused me of being "ideological". Is that the same as "having opinions"? That word is generally used dismissively. It should mean that I subscribe to some ideology. What ideology is it that you believe I subscribe to? How could you know whether my views on nuclear are inspired by some ideology that I've bought into wholesale, or whether they are the result of thinking things through for myself? Feel free to ask me about my opinions, but kindly refrain from telling me what they are.

> even if every nuclear power plant on the planet were shut-down today, "nuclear" would still be here to stay for at least a century or two. Is this really a problem, though?

denton-scratch 4y ago

Well, I think nuclear waste is a problem. It's highly toxic, and there's no process for detoxifying it. It has to be "got rid of", somehow, or put somewhere that humans can't accidentally encounter it. And it remains dangerous roughly forever, in terms of the span of a human civilisation. 200 years is sorta manageable, I suppose, if you have the resources and longevity of a nation state. You can bury it under a mountain, and set a battalion of armed orcs to guard it. But nation states can change their minds; whether the cost of hiring those orcs is money well-spent is a political decision, and the politicians responsible may not have "the long view" in mind. I think nuclear power can be done safely; but I don't think that's possible as long as the task is overseen by profit-making corporations or short-termist governments. And I don't see who else can do it.

MagnumOpus 4y ago
People would be less suspicious of your motives if you would spread the same amount of panic about coal industry ash ponds -- where arsenic and heavy metals will be lethal forever rather than just for thousands of years -- or mine tailings dams which burst with alarming regularity killing more people and devastating more square milege annually than nuclear waste ever did or will. As is, it seems that for you, dangerous waste is a deal breaker for something you are ideologically opposed to, but perfectly fine in other areas.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  I am from the UK. Our coal industry was almost completely destroyed by Margaret Thatcher. For many years, the notion of digging new pits has not been on the agenda. There is now a pit waiting for planning permission, but I don't think it will succeed (I hope not). Meanwhile plans to get some foreign company to build giant new nukes here are pressing ahead. So yeah, my focus is on the imminent threat that I can do something about, not on old mistakes that were made before I was born, that I can't do much about. > something you are ideologically opposed to You're the second person that has accused me of being "ideological". Is that the same as "having opinions"? That word is generally used dismissively. It should mean that I subscribe to some ideology. What ideology is it that you believe I subscribe to? How could you know whether my views on nuclear are inspired by some ideology that I've bought into wholesale, or whether they are the result of thinking things through for myself? Feel free to ask me about my opinions, but kindly refrain from telling me what they are.