4 ms·

I think this part stems from a common response you see from anti-nuclear folks, who frequently point to the issues at Hanford as a reason to be against civilian

by erentz 4y ago

I think this part stems from a common response you see from anti-nuclear folks, who frequently point to the issues at Hanford as a reason to be against civilian nuclear power. She's trying to make clear the difference between civilian nuclear power and waste management and historical waste from military nuclear weapons programs. Remembering also Hanford waste issues date as far back as the Manhattan Project during WW2.

whatshisface 4y ago
Civilian nuclear waste management has a better track record than military nuclear waste management and civilian chemical waste management. Is that a permanent condition, or a fluke?
- erentz 4y ago
  We are talking about 32 countries with civilian nuclear power operating for several decades. With oversight by an international body that tracks every bit of nuclear material. Using processes that differ from what was done at Hanford, producing waste different from Hanford. That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue. The military didn't start from that position, it started from "Joe just throw that shit in a pit over there, don't even bother keeping records." Hanford has no resemblance to civilian nuclear power. I think the onus is on those who keep saying it does (despite the evidence to the contrary) to demonstrate it.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue. Fukushima Daiichi. In case those two words aren't enough to jog your memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe... > "leading to releases of radioactivity and triggering a 30 km (19 mi) evacuation zone surrounding the plant" > "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years." I'm hopeful that when/if fusion reactors become prevalent that we will prioritize burning up the fusion waste radioactives. https://cns.utexas.edu/news/fusion-fission-hybrid https://cns.utexas.edu/news/fusion-fission-hybrid But, of course, that's an if: https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run...
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      > "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years." A minuscule amount of tritium, dumped into an ocean that has billions of tons of uranium dissolved in it. This Fukushima water issue is a perfect example of people letting emotions overrule rational thought.
      - pvaldes 4y ago
        > A minuscule amount of tritium, dumped into an ocean that has billions of tons of uranium (And then marine life enters the room, accumulating this while ignoring that, and all those carefully raised math models, simulations and speeches fall like a house of cards).
        natmaka 4y ago
        The "National Association of Marine Laboratories" publishes a Position Paper titled "Scientific opposition to Japan’s planned release of over 1.3 million tons of radioactively contaminated water from the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster into the Pacific Ocean." https://www.naml.org/policy/documents/2022-12-12%20Position%20Paper,%20Release%20of%20Radioactively%20Contaminated%20Water%20into%20the%20Ocean.pdf https://www.naml.org/policy/documents/2022-12-12%20Position%...
    - erentz 4y ago
      > Fukushima Daiichi. In case those two words aren't enough to jog your memory: Yes, I get that nuclear power scares people, which is why we should put aside our emotions on the subject and just deal with the facts. We've had decades of empirical evidence about nuclear safety at this point. Zero radio-logical related deaths from Fukushima. And zero deaths in all history from all other civilian nuclear waste. > "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years." It sounds scary. "Radioactive water!" But it's not an issue. How many will die or have shortened lifespan from this? Let me know and we can add it to the zero above.
- troupe 4y ago
  It is probably the result of military being secretive in nature and civilian efforts being more open so there is more oversight and awareness.

by erentz 4y ago

whatshisface 4y ago

Civilian nuclear waste management has a better track record than military nuclear waste management and civilian chemical waste management. Is that a permanent condition, or a fluke?

erentz 4y ago
We are talking about 32 countries with civilian nuclear power operating for several decades. With oversight by an international body that tracks every bit of nuclear material. Using processes that differ from what was done at Hanford, producing waste different from Hanford. That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue. The military didn't start from that position, it started from "Joe just throw that shit in a pit over there, don't even bother keeping records." Hanford has no resemblance to civilian nuclear power. I think the onus is on those who keep saying it does (despite the evidence to the contrary) to demonstrate it.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue. Fukushima Daiichi. In case those two words aren't enough to jog your memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe... > "leading to releases of radioactivity and triggering a 30 km (19 mi) evacuation zone surrounding the plant" > "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years." I'm hopeful that when/if fusion reactors become prevalent that we will prioritize burning up the fusion waste radioactives. https://cns.utexas.edu/news/fusion-fission-hybrid https://cns.utexas.edu/news/fusion-fission-hybrid But, of course, that's an if: https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run...
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years." A minuscule amount of tritium, dumped into an ocean that has billions of tons of uranium dissolved in it. This Fukushima water issue is a perfect example of people letting emotions overrule rational thought.
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      > A minuscule amount of tritium, dumped into an ocean that has billions of tons of uranium (And then marine life enters the room, accumulating this while ignoring that, and all those carefully raised math models, simulations and speeches fall like a house of cards).
      - natmaka 4y ago
        The "National Association of Marine Laboratories" publishes a Position Paper titled "Scientific opposition to Japan’s planned release of over 1.3 million tons of radioactively contaminated water from the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster into the Pacific Ocean." https://www.naml.org/policy/documents/2022-12-12%20Position%20Paper,%20Release%20of%20Radioactively%20Contaminated%20Water%20into%20the%20Ocean.pdf https://www.naml.org/policy/documents/2022-12-12%20Position%...
  - erentz 4y ago
    > Fukushima Daiichi. In case those two words aren't enough to jog your memory: Yes, I get that nuclear power scares people, which is why we should put aside our emotions on the subject and just deal with the facts. We've had decades of empirical evidence about nuclear safety at this point. Zero radio-logical related deaths from Fukushima. And zero deaths in all history from all other civilian nuclear waste. > "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years." It sounds scary. "Radioactive water!" But it's not an issue. How many will die or have shortened lifespan from this? Let me know and we can add it to the zero above.
troupe 4y ago
It is probably the result of military being secretive in nature and civilian efforts being more open so there is more oversight and awareness.