3 ms·

"The old 'what if evil terrorist' nonsense." The old nothing bad ever happens nonsense. Have you heard about the Ukraine conflict or does your lack of coheren

"The old 'what if evil terrorist' nonsense." The old nothing bad ever happens nonsense. Have you heard about the Ukraine conflict or does your lack of coherent points include a lack of knowlegde of current events? Then there are the frequent insecurities, missing nuclear materials, and other fun new conflicts brewing...

panick21_ 3y ago
> The old nothing bad ever happens nonsense. Exact that not what I said. What I said to make a rational assessment of danger. Yes things happen, how likely are their and at what risk level. And if you do that for civilian nuclear waste you can conclude that the danger is very low and even if something happens the overwhelming probability is that it is a very low risk thing. I have actually been to the Ukraine during the conflict? Have you? And I work with Ukrainians that have displaced family. Just saying 'what about Ukraine' is not an argument. > Then there are the frequent insecurities, missing nuclear materials, and other fun new conflicts brewing... Yeah what if the Russians capture the civilian nuclear waste that was originally produced in the Soviet union. The Russians could be building nuclear weapons. What then, oh the humanity. > missing nuclear materials When the terrorist show up and steal 12m high concert blocks only to then make an inefficient dirty bomb. I much prefer terrorist to try that then doing something that's actually effective, like derailing trains of flying planes into buildings. > and other fun new conflicts brewing Ok but you know what, most of the time, most nations that have civilian nuclear waste are not at war. And terrorism isn't what George Bush apparently made you believe. And even if war or terror happen, civilian nuclear waste is incredibly low risk. Your argument essentially boils down to 'sometimes something happens' therefore no risk of anything bad ever happening is acceptable. Of course the same argument could be made against pretty much every other human built infrastructure.
panick21_ 3y ago
The waste has to be slightly monitored but that's it. The most likely case is that for 100+ years nobody has to do anything to this fuel. You can easily collocate this with other research operations. Then you don't even have to pay a dedicated secure guard. > You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal The lots of places where nuclear waste stands around totally unguarded with maybe a small fence. And yet in reality people don't steal gigantic concrete blocks that need spacial transport. If you are seriously question the argument that digging a huge incredibly complex geological storage is more expensive then a normal storage building then I question your sanity. Your argument seems to boil down to the typical 'what if highly unrealistic terrorist from a holywood movie set show up'. I prefer to live in the real world, rather then Holywood fantasy land where villains with incredibly dumb and unrealistic plans are a weekly event.

panick21_ 3y ago

> The old nothing bad ever happens nonsense. Exact that not what I said. What I said to make a rational assessment of danger. Yes things happen, how likely are their and at what risk level. And if you do that for civilian nuclear waste you can conclude that the danger is very low and even if something happens the overwhelming probability is that it is a very low risk thing. I have actually been to the Ukraine during the conflict? Have you? And I work with Ukrainians that have displaced family. Just saying 'what about Ukraine' is not an argument. > Then there are the frequent insecurities, missing nuclear materials, and other fun new conflicts brewing... Yeah what if the Russians capture the civilian nuclear waste that was originally produced in the Soviet union. The Russians could be building nuclear weapons. What then, oh the humanity. > missing nuclear materials When the terrorist show up and steal 12m high concert blocks only to then make an inefficient dirty bomb. I much prefer terrorist to try that then doing something that's actually effective, like derailing trains of flying planes into buildings. > and other fun new conflicts brewing Ok but you know what, most of the time, most nations that have civilian nuclear waste are not at war. And terrorism isn't what George Bush apparently made you believe. And even if war or terror happen, civilian nuclear waste is incredibly low risk. Your argument essentially boils down to 'sometimes something happens' therefore no risk of anything bad ever happening is acceptable. Of course the same argument could be made against pretty much every other human built infrastructure.

panick21_ 3y ago

The waste has to be slightly monitored but that's it. The most likely case is that for 100+ years nobody has to do anything to this fuel. You can easily collocate this with other research operations. Then you don't even have to pay a dedicated secure guard. > You can't just leave the high-level waste there for anyone to steal The lots of places where nuclear waste stands around totally unguarded with maybe a small fence. And yet in reality people don't steal gigantic concrete blocks that need spacial transport. If you are seriously question the argument that digging a huge incredibly complex geological storage is more expensive then a normal storage building then I question your sanity. Your argument seems to boil down to the typical 'what if highly unrealistic terrorist from a holywood movie set show up'. I prefer to live in the real world, rather then Holywood fantasy land where villains with incredibly dumb and unrealistic plans are a weekly event.