3 ms·

Seems to feed on fear of nuclear. On the other hand we are happily dumping radioactive contents from coal power into the air: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doc

Seems to feed on fear of nuclear. On the other hand we are happily dumping radioactive contents from coal power into the air: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-003567_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-00356... > The fact that coal power plants are radioactive has been established not only on the basis of scientific data, but also because some companies have specialised in salvaging uranium from the smoke the plants give off in order to resell it to the nuclear power industry It seems like we have a really hard time focusing on the best option. We are accepting far worse outcomes at the moment while we indulge the scare of nuclear power.

amelius 4y ago
Reminds me of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  Radiation, PCBs, PFAS, Mercury, BPA, PAHs, Dioxin, Pesticides...all tiny does on their own, harmless. Wonder what happens when all those separate tiny doses are combined? I mean the Hudson is already a Superfund site so what harm can 1 million gallon of slightly radioactive water do? Adding from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-radioactive-hydrogen-in-drinking-water-a-cancer-threat/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-radioactive-hy... "But there is no definitive epidemiological study to assess the true risk of tritium, and animal studies are also lacking." "Some evidence suggests the kind of radiation emitted by tritium—a so-called beta particle—is actually more effective at causing cancer than the high-energy radiation such as gamma rays, even though skin can block a beta particle. "
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    So, one of the main points about going nuclear is that the externalities are more limited and contained than existing solutions. We already release radioactive waste from coal based power plants (plus all the other bi-products from the ashes).
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
"Seems to feed on fear of nuclear. " If you read the article you will see that they only want Holtec to use a less harmful solution, storing the waste for 24 years. It is a truth that they are dumping 1 million gallons of radioactive waste in the Hudson. If you are OK with that maybe you should tell them to dump it in your local river.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  > If you are OK with that maybe you should tell them to dump it in your local river. It is OK with me. I already have a local powerplant, local cars, and local industry exhausting it into the air a breath. If I could switch, I happily would accept this type of release into the water over the release into the air. > ..., storing the waste for 24 years. Should we as power plants to store the exhaust air for 24 years?
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    > Should we as power plants to store the exhaust air for 24 years? Yes. > If I could switch, I happily would accept this type of release into the water over the release into the air. Read the article. The solution is to store it on site with the plutonium. Holtec just does not want to pay for it.
    - kapuasuite 4y ago
      How dangerous is it to dump it in the river now?
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  Storing for 24 years and then doing would be the same as releasing 1/4 million gallons now. If it's that harmful, that's not OK either.

amelius 4y ago

Reminds me of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
Radiation, PCBs, PFAS, Mercury, BPA, PAHs, Dioxin, Pesticides...all tiny does on their own, harmless. Wonder what happens when all those separate tiny doses are combined? I mean the Hudson is already a Superfund site so what harm can 1 million gallon of slightly radioactive water do? Adding from Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-radioactive-hydrogen-in-drinking-water-a-cancer-threat/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-radioactive-hy... "But there is no definitive epidemiological study to assess the true risk of tritium, and animal studies are also lacking." "Some evidence suggests the kind of radiation emitted by tritium—a so-called beta particle—is actually more effective at causing cancer than the high-energy radiation such as gamma rays, even though skin can block a beta particle. "
- madsbuch 4y ago
  So, one of the main points about going nuclear is that the externalities are more limited and contained than existing solutions. We already release radioactive waste from coal based power plants (plus all the other bi-products from the ashes).

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

"Seems to feed on fear of nuclear. " If you read the article you will see that they only want Holtec to use a less harmful solution, storing the waste for 24 years. It is a truth that they are dumping 1 million gallons of radioactive waste in the Hudson. If you are OK with that maybe you should tell them to dump it in your local river.

madsbuch 4y ago
> If you are OK with that maybe you should tell them to dump it in your local river. It is OK with me. I already have a local powerplant, local cars, and local industry exhausting it into the air a breath. If I could switch, I happily would accept this type of release into the water over the release into the air. > ..., storing the waste for 24 years. Should we as power plants to store the exhaust air for 24 years?
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  > Should we as power plants to store the exhaust air for 24 years? Yes. > If I could switch, I happily would accept this type of release into the water over the release into the air. Read the article. The solution is to store it on site with the plutonium. Holtec just does not want to pay for it.
  - kapuasuite 4y ago
    How dangerous is it to dump it in the river now?
adhesive_wombat 4y ago
Storing for 24 years and then doing would be the same as releasing 1/4 million gallons now. If it's that harmful, that's not OK either.