4 ms·
"Small amounts"? https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tritium-leaks-found-at-many-nuke-sites https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii
by KennyBlanken 4y ago
"Small amounts"?
https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tritium-leaks-found-at-many-nuke-sites https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tri...
45 out of 65 sites had significant tritium leaks, some were migrating off site, some were starting to contaminate public drinking water.
The nuclear industry is so loosely regulated that a half million gallon leak of radioactive water recently apparently didn't require them to notify anyone https://apnews.com/article/xcel-energy-nuclear-leak-tritium-6e522afbb12ad26925c40d833853088d https://apnews.com/article/xcel-energy-nuclear-leak-tritium-...
Also: "it's better than coal!"...no kidding. It's not better than wind and solar. Not in terms of price, time to install, time for carbon payback, waste issues, or safety.
That's why grid operators are shutting down both coal and nuclear in the US, and replacing it with solar and wind (the US has in recent years installed 6x more renewables-based capacity than nuclear capacity that has been shut down)
- blibble 4y agothose articles are pretty anti-scientific (especially the second one) 1.5 million litres of radioactive water (tritiated water) sounds scary, but they don't report the concentration, so it's meaningless if it was 1.5 billion litres with the same radiological content it would be less dangerous a load of coal ash getting into a river is likely worse radiologically and chemically than some tritiated water escaping > Also: "it's better than coal!"...no kidding. It's not better than wind and solar. Not in terms of price, time to install, time for carbon payback, waste issues, or safety. reliability if you want the lights to stay on at night when the wind drops then you need nuclear