5 ms·

It would be really, really nice if we lived in a world where people new nuclear power mostly just means heating water (like many methods of power generation…)

by s5300 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago
Yeah, heating water with radioactive material. And then having to dispose toxic byproducts that can kill millions for thousands of years.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >that can kill millions Did the inverse square law stop working recently or do they all take turns touching it?
  - ArnoVW 4y ago
    it's not the irradiation that people are worried about. It's the pollution, in the litteral sense. In the case of a fire (to take an all but too common example), all the radioactive material is distributed as tiny particles that get into the air we breathe and the water we drink. So no, they do not take turns. The live 1000 km away, and just buy a fish that swam 100 km away from the fire.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      I suggest you do your research about fallout. It decays about 1 order of magnitude for every 7^n of time. That’s the idea behind fallout shelters, you wait until the fallout is no longer dangerous. The atmosphere is a very harsh place for radioactive particles. We’ve gleaned this from real world testing. Please don’t be afraid of made up things. Be afraid of real things like climate change.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        Similar non-chalance and assurances about previous technologies is how climate change came about..
        RC_ITR 4y ago
        No, we’ve known about the greenhouse effect for well over a century. It’s not non-chalance, it’s indifference. EDIT: the cause of the indifference is in part because it’s harder to get scared about! Our brains aren’t perfect risk estimators, especially when it comes to radiation and atmospheric dilution.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Do you need to take turns touching it for it to be mishandled, stolen, have some accident during transport, leak in the biosphere, the soil, rivers, or underground waters, spread as air particles, be used in a dirt bomb, and several other ways besides?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      Again, you can be afraid of imagined scenarios or you can do research. Uranium in power plants is dangerous because there are literal tons of it in one place. Any amount that could be feasibly moved has a low overall level of radiation (uranium has a super long half life, which means pound for pound it emits very little). Don’t people wonder how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still cities where people live today (hint, the ~10lbs of uranium in the bombs aren’t actually that much on a time scale of years)?
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > and several other ways besides? As of March 2023, there are 422 operable power reactors in the world. Additionally, there are 58 reactors under construction and 104 reactors planned [1] We've had nuclear plants for over 50-60 years now. We've also had nuclear reactors in ships, submarines etc. How many of your amazing spy-novel-level scenarios have happened in reality? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
      - coldtea 4y ago
        Quite a lot. Especially when one would already be 'too many': https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/05/radioactive-materials-lost-30-incidents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/05/radioact... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64512297 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64512297 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/15/asia/missing-lost-radioactive-cylinder-thailand-search-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/15/asia/missing-lost-radioac... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/16/un-nuclear-watchdog-iaea-uranium-missing-libya https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/16/un-nuclear-wat...
bottlepalm 4y ago
The problem is if the water turns off for any reason, it'll burn itself up and cause a massive disaster. Especially the spent fuel which needs water to stay cool. It's not fail safe.

It would be really, really nice if we lived in a world where people new nuclear power mostly just means heating water (like many methods of power generation…)

by s5300 4y ago

It would be really, really nice if we lived in a world where people new nuclear power mostly just means heating water (like many methods of power generation…)

coldtea 4y ago

Yeah, heating water with radioactive material. And then having to dispose toxic byproducts that can kill millions for thousands of years.

RC_ITR 4y ago
>that can kill millions Did the inverse square law stop working recently or do they all take turns touching it?
- ArnoVW 4y ago
  it's not the irradiation that people are worried about. It's the pollution, in the litteral sense. In the case of a fire (to take an all but too common example), all the radioactive material is distributed as tiny particles that get into the air we breathe and the water we drink. So no, they do not take turns. The live 1000 km away, and just buy a fish that swam 100 km away from the fire.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    I suggest you do your research about fallout. It decays about 1 order of magnitude for every 7^n of time. That’s the idea behind fallout shelters, you wait until the fallout is no longer dangerous. The atmosphere is a very harsh place for radioactive particles. We’ve gleaned this from real world testing. Please don’t be afraid of made up things. Be afraid of real things like climate change.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      Similar non-chalance and assurances about previous technologies is how climate change came about..
      - RC_ITR 4y ago
        No, we’ve known about the greenhouse effect for well over a century. It’s not non-chalance, it’s indifference. EDIT: the cause of the indifference is in part because it’s harder to get scared about! Our brains aren’t perfect risk estimators, especially when it comes to radiation and atmospheric dilution.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Do you need to take turns touching it for it to be mishandled, stolen, have some accident during transport, leak in the biosphere, the soil, rivers, or underground waters, spread as air particles, be used in a dirt bomb, and several other ways besides?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Again, you can be afraid of imagined scenarios or you can do research. Uranium in power plants is dangerous because there are literal tons of it in one place. Any amount that could be feasibly moved has a low overall level of radiation (uranium has a super long half life, which means pound for pound it emits very little). Don’t people wonder how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still cities where people live today (hint, the ~10lbs of uranium in the bombs aren’t actually that much on a time scale of years)?
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > and several other ways besides? As of March 2023, there are 422 operable power reactors in the world. Additionally, there are 58 reactors under construction and 104 reactors planned [1] We've had nuclear plants for over 50-60 years now. We've also had nuclear reactors in ships, submarines etc. How many of your amazing spy-novel-level scenarios have happened in reality? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
    - coldtea 4y ago
      Quite a lot. Especially when one would already be 'too many': https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/05/radioactive-materials-lost-30-incidents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/05/radioact... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64512297 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64512297 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/15/asia/missing-lost-radioactive-cylinder-thailand-search-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/15/asia/missing-lost-radioac... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/16/un-nuclear-watchdog-iaea-uranium-missing-libya https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/16/un-nuclear-wat...

bottlepalm 4y ago

The problem is if the water turns off for any reason, it'll burn itself up and cause a massive disaster. Especially the spent fuel which needs water to stay cool. It's not fail safe.