4 ms·

"Nuclear power is cleaner [..] than fossil fuels in every way." Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere.

pantalaimon 3y ago
Nuclear waste doesn’t cause climate change and it doesn’t go anywhere - this is not an urgent problem.
Nicksil 3y ago
>Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere. I don't understand your argument; of course waste must go somewhere. Nuclear power, with its waste, is still cleaner than fossil fuels in every way.
- DrBazza 3y ago
  > nuclear waste has to go somewhere. My stock comment for that is: bury it deep and with signs; if we've lost the ability to read the signs, we've lost the ability to dig deep and endanger ourselves.
  - Nicksil 3y ago
    Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
- benfortuna 3y ago
  I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way".
  - Nicksil 3y ago
    >I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. No, we've got a pretty good idea. >So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way". It is, objectively.
DrBazza 3y ago
Fossil fuel waste goes straight into the atmosphere is and is killing millions of people through climate change and respiratory diseases. And not forgetting slag piles and other fossil fuel waste (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster). Nuclear waste has killed possibly a few hundred people at best.
- RoyalBingBong 3y ago
  You should also take in consideration, that nuclear waste is dangerous over a very long period of time. So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    > So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous. Not if we store it properly, like we already do.
  - Nicksil 3y ago
    >You should also take in consideration, that nuclear waste is dangerous over a very long period of time. So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous. Take into consideration the burning of fossil fuels over a very long period of time. Billions.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
polotics 3y ago
What you do is finally close the cycle with a fast breeder... This was so clear, then Astrid got shot for no good reason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)
ekianjo 3y ago
> nuclear waste has to go somewhere. yes, and it's so dense that it fits in a ridiculous amount of space, unlike coal that will put cancer-causing dusts everywhere in the air for decades to come. Enjoy.

pantalaimon 3y ago

Nuclear waste doesn’t cause climate change and it doesn’t go anywhere - this is not an urgent problem.

Nicksil 3y ago

>Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere. I don't understand your argument; of course waste must go somewhere. Nuclear power, with its waste, is still cleaner than fossil fuels in every way.

DrBazza 3y ago
> nuclear waste has to go somewhere. My stock comment for that is: bury it deep and with signs; if we've lost the ability to read the signs, we've lost the ability to dig deep and endanger ourselves.
- Nicksil 3y ago
  Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
benfortuna 3y ago
I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way".
- Nicksil 3y ago
  >I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. No, we've got a pretty good idea. >So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way". It is, objectively.

DrBazza 3y ago

Fossil fuel waste goes straight into the atmosphere is and is killing millions of people through climate change and respiratory diseases. And not forgetting slag piles and other fossil fuel waste (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster). Nuclear waste has killed possibly a few hundred people at best.

RoyalBingBong 3y ago
You should also take in consideration, that nuclear waste is dangerous over a very long period of time. So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous. Not if we store it properly, like we already do.
- Nicksil 3y ago
  >You should also take in consideration, that nuclear waste is dangerous over a very long period of time. So a couple hundred now might turn into millions until the waste is no longer dangerous. Take into consideration the burning of fossil fuels over a very long period of time. Billions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

polotics 3y ago

What you do is finally close the cycle with a fast breeder... This was so clear, then Astrid got shot for no good reason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)

ekianjo 3y ago

> nuclear waste has to go somewhere. yes, and it's so dense that it fits in a ridiculous amount of space, unlike coal that will put cancer-causing dusts everywhere in the air for decades to come. Enjoy.