4 ms·

Revealed: Sellafield nuclear site has leak that could pose risk to public

• worik 3y ago
  Nuclear power is clearly safe
  • goodSteveramos 3y ago
    define safe
• Kon5ole 3y ago
  2 billion GBP in yearly maintenance for a site that hasn't produced electricity since 2003. And the consequences of not paying are so severe that neighboring countries are talking about volunteering money to the upkeep. And the consumers thought they got "cheap electricity". Even worse, some consumers today still believe they get cheap electricity from nuclear!
  • goodSteveramos 3y ago
    The waste in question is NOT from civilian power reactors on the site. Its from the separation of plutonium for the manufacture of weapons. If you dont want plutonium waste then dont make weapons. This is NOT an argument against nuclear power.
    • Kon5ole 3y ago
      Of course it is an argument! It shows that humans can’t be trusted to keep dangerous things safe over a long period of time, and also shows that the cost of nuclear power has been much higher than any published estimates have ever taken into account. Sellafield is one example of this problem, in Germany you have Asse II if you want another, and Germany has no nuclear weapons.
• goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Liquid waste is from nuclear weapons manufacture NOT nuclear power. Blaming civilian nuclear power for waste generated in a hasty military operation to produce bombs is misinformed or dishonest.
  • rthnbgrredf 3y ago
    The problem is that pro-nuclear advocates, like many on HN, always have a convincing explanation for why a particular nuclear contamination isn't as severe as it seems or isn't the fault of X. This was also the case with Fukushima. I'm not sure what kind of incident would be required for even a pro-nuclear HN user to admit, "Well, this was truly bad. Perhaps it wasn't a good idea. But, we ran the numbers, and this event was certainly not anticipated, much like nobody foresaw Chernobyl." But perhaps even 10x Chernobyls couldn't convince them otherwise.
    • goodSteveramos 3y ago
      Would it not be unreasonable to conclude that the reason pro-nuclear advocates have convincing counterarguments for every conflation or exaggeration of anti-nuclear advocates is because the pro-nuclear advocates are right and the anti-nuclear advocates are wrong?
      • rthnbgrredf 3y ago
        Certainly, that's a fair assumption. However, advocates of nuclear weapons or, for instance, ordinary gun owners, can also cite statistics in their favor. In the US, there are significantly more fatalities due to car accidents compared to deaths from nuclear weapons or gun-related incidents. Thus, based on this data, one could argue that both nuclear weapons and firearms are safer than automobiles. Measuring potential risks is challenging because it often depends on projections rather than past statistical events. It's difficult to claim objective truth in matters like these. For instance, try to explain to a mother who lost her child on Chernobyl's roof why nuclear energy is safe. Similarly, telling a mother who lost her child in a school shooting that guns are safe, because statistically cars pose a greater danger to human life in the US. What I'm trying to say is you can have convincing arguments for many things, even those things that can and do actually kill people.