4 ms·

You're welcome to prove your initial assertion now that you're admitting how facile the comparison was. You're also now asserting that weapons waste is handled

You're welcome to prove your initial assertion now that you're admitting how facile the comparison was. You're also now asserting that weapons waste is handled in a perfectly fine way suitable for orders of magnitude more long lived waste in the same breath you imply they're far more irresponsible.

credit_guy 4y ago
Ok, here we go, just because I like you so much. During the Cold War, the US has produced about 100 tons of Plutonium for weapons purposes. Here's the quote from [1] > Between 1944 and 1988, the United States built special reactors to make about 100 metric tons of plutonium for nuclear weapons. The reactors created the highly radioactive plutonium by bombarding uranium fuel rods with neutrons. Each time a uranium atom changed to a plutonium atom, more neutrons were released, causing a chain reaction. The process continued until the majority of the uranium atoms were converted to plutonium, thus ending the chain reaction. At this point, the fuel rods are said to be spent (used up) and they were removed from the reactor. > Workers used strong acids to dissolve the plutonium from the fuel rods. This process left behind more than 100 million gallons of hazardous liquid waste. It is called mixed waste because it contains both hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. The Department of Energy is working to safely cleanup and dispose of these nuclear weapons production wastes This "mixed waste" that the EPA is talking about is the one that's being burried at the WIPP facility. It contains trans-uranic isotopes (TRU). These isotopes are long-lived. They can be permanently disposed of either by being burned in a fast neutron reactor or by being buried deep underground. The second solution was chosen. Although this "mixed waste" is not identical with the civilian spent nuclear fuel, the problem of long lived radionuclides is the same. If this waste can be disposed at the WIPP facility, then the spent fuel can too. Did I satisfy your high standards of debate? [1] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The smallest bit of honesty and numerical literacy is not a particularly high standard, but you've limboed under it again. You just doubled down on the same facile comparison. The fission product yield of breeding 100 tonnes of Pu is about the same as running a single power reactor for 5 years or so, and not only did it create far less long lived Pu240 and similar transuranics (the entire point of doing it this way), but they were removed with the end product. It's like comparing a charcoal burning pit to the entire coal industry.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    This is a complete non sequitur. It does not matter that the mixed waste is less radioactive than the spent nuclear fuel. The mixed waste is radioactive, and it will continue to be for more than 10000 years, according to the EPA. Spent fuel from civilian reactors is even more radioactive. So what? How is this relevant? We found a technological and political solution to the mixed waste. It is being buried in a very deep salt mine in New Mexico. The amount of mixed waste dwarfs the amount of civilian spent nuclear fuel. Therefore we could bury the SNF in the same place. What of these things are you denying?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      The site is unsuitable for high level waste as proven by already having leaked once and not being properly isolated, and orders of magnitude too small to properly contain the quantity of material (including casks and proper separation distance), and doesn't provide any semblance very long term protection against being dug up. Learn the basics of what your spruiking before vomiting ignorance into the world.
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        > before vomiting You are getting a bit agitated. I don't want you to get a stroke or something. Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, count to one hundred, go for a walk. > having leaked once and not being properly isolated With deep burial sites there are two problems: technological and political. You are claiming here that WIPP does not solve the technological problem. I prefer to trust the EPA and DOE on that, rather than some random dude on the internet. Regardless, my point is that without a doubt, the WIPP has solved the political problem. For the simple reason that it exists. Congress has passed an act, the facility was funded, it was built, and is in operation.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > You are getting a bit agitated. I don't want you to get a stroke or something. Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, count to one hundred, go for a walk. Ah, the song of the concern troll everywhere, projecting your own cult-like attachment to nuclear power on others. Slimy and pathetic tactic. Calling out your idiocy isn't getting emotional, but it does seem like I've touched a nerve. > With deep burial sites there are two problems: technological and political. You are claiming here that WIPP does not solve the technological problem. I prefer to trust the EPA and DOE on that, rather than some random dude on the internet. Then trust their opinion that it's not suitable for SNF. Also the US government (including after the EPA and DOE were formed) signed off on cotter mill and countless oil pipeline projects which later did massive ecological harm. They are not really great at saying no to ecological danger. > Regardless, my point is that without a doubt, the WIPP has solved the political problem. For the simple reason that it exists. Congress has passed an act, the facility was funded, it was built, and is in operation. The military getting away with half assing solving a much smaller problem isn't solving the political problem.

credit_guy 4y ago

Ok, here we go, just because I like you so much. During the Cold War, the US has produced about 100 tons of Plutonium for weapons purposes. Here's the quote from [1] > Between 1944 and 1988, the United States built special reactors to make about 100 metric tons of plutonium for nuclear weapons. The reactors created the highly radioactive plutonium by bombarding uranium fuel rods with neutrons. Each time a uranium atom changed to a plutonium atom, more neutrons were released, causing a chain reaction. The process continued until the majority of the uranium atoms were converted to plutonium, thus ending the chain reaction. At this point, the fuel rods are said to be spent (used up) and they were removed from the reactor. > Workers used strong acids to dissolve the plutonium from the fuel rods. This process left behind more than 100 million gallons of hazardous liquid waste. It is called mixed waste because it contains both hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. The Department of Energy is working to safely cleanup and dispose of these nuclear weapons production wastes This "mixed waste" that the EPA is talking about is the one that's being burried at the WIPP facility. It contains trans-uranic isotopes (TRU). These isotopes are long-lived. They can be permanently disposed of either by being burned in a fast neutron reactor or by being buried deep underground. The second solution was chosen. Although this "mixed waste" is not identical with the civilian spent nuclear fuel, the problem of long lived radionuclides is the same. If this waste can be disposed at the WIPP facility, then the spent fuel can too. Did I satisfy your high standards of debate? [1] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The smallest bit of honesty and numerical literacy is not a particularly high standard, but you've limboed under it again. You just doubled down on the same facile comparison. The fission product yield of breeding 100 tonnes of Pu is about the same as running a single power reactor for 5 years or so, and not only did it create far less long lived Pu240 and similar transuranics (the entire point of doing it this way), but they were removed with the end product. It's like comparing a charcoal burning pit to the entire coal industry.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  This is a complete non sequitur. It does not matter that the mixed waste is less radioactive than the spent nuclear fuel. The mixed waste is radioactive, and it will continue to be for more than 10000 years, according to the EPA. Spent fuel from civilian reactors is even more radioactive. So what? How is this relevant? We found a technological and political solution to the mixed waste. It is being buried in a very deep salt mine in New Mexico. The amount of mixed waste dwarfs the amount of civilian spent nuclear fuel. Therefore we could bury the SNF in the same place. What of these things are you denying?
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The site is unsuitable for high level waste as proven by already having leaked once and not being properly isolated, and orders of magnitude too small to properly contain the quantity of material (including casks and proper separation distance), and doesn't provide any semblance very long term protection against being dug up. Learn the basics of what your spruiking before vomiting ignorance into the world.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      > before vomiting You are getting a bit agitated. I don't want you to get a stroke or something. Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, count to one hundred, go for a walk. > having leaked once and not being properly isolated With deep burial sites there are two problems: technological and political. You are claiming here that WIPP does not solve the technological problem. I prefer to trust the EPA and DOE on that, rather than some random dude on the internet. Regardless, my point is that without a doubt, the WIPP has solved the political problem. For the simple reason that it exists. Congress has passed an act, the facility was funded, it was built, and is in operation.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > You are getting a bit agitated. I don't want you to get a stroke or something. Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, count to one hundred, go for a walk. Ah, the song of the concern troll everywhere, projecting your own cult-like attachment to nuclear power on others. Slimy and pathetic tactic. Calling out your idiocy isn't getting emotional, but it does seem like I've touched a nerve. > With deep burial sites there are two problems: technological and political. You are claiming here that WIPP does not solve the technological problem. I prefer to trust the EPA and DOE on that, rather than some random dude on the internet. Then trust their opinion that it's not suitable for SNF. Also the US government (including after the EPA and DOE were formed) signed off on cotter mill and countless oil pipeline projects which later did massive ecological harm. They are not really great at saying no to ecological danger. > Regardless, my point is that without a doubt, the WIPP has solved the political problem. For the simple reason that it exists. Congress has passed an act, the facility was funded, it was built, and is in operation. The military getting away with half assing solving a much smaller problem isn't solving the political problem.