3 ms·

There is a fourth option. Nuclear waste can be used in dirty bombs and poisons as well. So waste sites should be somewhat secure. So in the analogy it would be

There is a fourth option. Nuclear waste can be used in dirty bombs and poisons as well. So waste sites should be somewhat secure. So in the analogy it would be as if we left a stockpile of guns and ammo. I don’t think leaving a bunch of loaded guns around is a responsible way to hand the future to our children, especially since we can’t know what the future political situations will be.

karlerss 3y ago
But we did leave a stockpile of weapons and ammo. It's a minor inconvenience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_bomb_disposal_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_bomb_disposal_i...
- janalsncm 3y ago
  It’s a minor inconvenience in Europe because of the political stability of the region. However, it has been stable for only a relatively short period of time, with no guarantees for the future. So let me reframe the question. Do you think it would be a good idea to store spent nuclear waste in present day Iraq or Syria?
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Proliferation is the biggest hazard, I think. Proliferation of the fissile material remains a problem for much longer than the radiation from the fission products (which is only a few hundred years). The best way is to burn up these actinides in a suitable reactor.
Manuel_D 3y ago
It'd be easier to just mine naturally occurring uranium. Are terrorists somehow going to successfully excavate a mile deep into bedrock in Finland, without anyone noticing? Again, we do have big stockpiles of guns and ammo. We have bunkers full of artillery shells, missiles, and weapons. Where's the outrage over the dozens (hundreds?) of munitions stockpiles militaries have strewn across the globe? Again the question is, what risk does nuclear pose that we don't already navigate with other more mundane materials?
cyberax 3y ago
You can make poisons without nuclear materials just fine. Keep in mind, that regular heavy metals also don't go away. The nuclear material in casks is not _that_ dangerous because of its long half-life. So dirty bombs made from it would not result in a significant loss of life. They'll just result in a very expensive cleanup of the affected areas.

karlerss 3y ago

But we did leave a stockpile of weapons and ammo. It's a minor inconvenience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_bomb_disposal_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_bomb_disposal_i...

janalsncm 3y ago
It’s a minor inconvenience in Europe because of the political stability of the region. However, it has been stable for only a relatively short period of time, with no guarantees for the future. So let me reframe the question. Do you think it would be a good idea to store spent nuclear waste in present day Iraq or Syria?
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Proliferation is the biggest hazard, I think. Proliferation of the fissile material remains a problem for much longer than the radiation from the fission products (which is only a few hundred years). The best way is to burn up these actinides in a suitable reactor.

Manuel_D 3y ago

It'd be easier to just mine naturally occurring uranium. Are terrorists somehow going to successfully excavate a mile deep into bedrock in Finland, without anyone noticing? Again, we do have big stockpiles of guns and ammo. We have bunkers full of artillery shells, missiles, and weapons. Where's the outrage over the dozens (hundreds?) of munitions stockpiles militaries have strewn across the globe? Again the question is, what risk does nuclear pose that we don't already navigate with other more mundane materials?

cyberax 3y ago

You can make poisons without nuclear materials just fine. Keep in mind, that regular heavy metals also don't go away. The nuclear material in casks is not _that_ dangerous because of its long half-life. So dirty bombs made from it would not result in a significant loss of life. They'll just result in a very expensive cleanup of the affected areas.