4 ms·

The nuclear plants are not the only source of highly toxic nuclear waste -- medicine, science and industry have also a fine share, and they are often dealing wi

by mbq 14y ago

The nuclear plants are not the only source of highly toxic nuclear waste -- medicine, science and industry have also a fine share, and they are often dealing with much more dangerous isotopes that are in the nuclear waste. The storage problem comes fact any attempt of reason immediately sinks in an overall panic; and the by-design scaleable long-run solution is pretty simple -- to put them from where we have mined them. Oklo reactors proved such storage can last billions of years.

skore 14y ago
Absolutely agreed - but we can "solve" energy differently. Not so much for other applications. So nuclear waste in energy is completely avoidable. Not sure I understand your second paragraph.
- ars 14y ago
  > but we can "solve" energy differently Really? How? Just about every other technology is net negative on energy, so how do you plan to solve energy?
  - skore 14y ago
    Oh, ok then. I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output. Instead, it seems like we're arguing for what would give us the perfect energy perpetuum mobile.
    - ars 14y ago
      > I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output It's not. It's a physics discussion: Energy produced vs pollution created.
      - skore 14y ago
        Hmm, this is slowly turning into word-twisting. Obviously, "pollution created" is a negative benefit output and "energy produced" is a positive one. I guess the actual problem in our discussion is that you have a profoundly different understanding of pollution since my cutoff is pretty much at "any nuclear waste".
        ars 14y ago
        > since my cutoff is pretty much at "any nuclear waste" Really? So I guess there is not much point in talking to you further. (Although I guess other people are also reading these threads.) It might help your case if you explained why, but I'm betting it's irrational fear, not anything you could explain. Me, I prefer to measure my pollution in terms of damage caused, not fear. There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear.
        skore 14y ago
        Nah, fear isn't really the issue here, I would say that I have a rather calculated understanding of why I find radioactive waste so problematic (and since you asked, you'll have to endulge the full explanation). For me, it comes down to what kind of pollution we are talking about and radioactive pollution is particularly nasty to me as it represents a chaotic pollution that is just exceptionally hard to deal with. Let's say the simplest, non-chaotic, kind of pollution is "dirt on your shoe" - you know where it came from (that thing you just stepped in), you know where it is (you see it on your shoe), what it does (hardly anything, except look bad) and how to get it out (wash it off). With radioactive pollution, knowing where the pollution is coming from can already be a tough job - if you have a known leak, sure, that's where it's coming from. But often, you have to use a Geiger counter to detect it in the first place and often times, you then still have to figure out where the actual source is. Where it went is mostly a statistical science, which is only comforting if your arm chair is not close to the accident in question. If it is, it's highly distressing. Next up, it's still completely up for graps what it does - for humans, it can be anything from a challenged immune system to instant death, depending on the dose. (Although the latter is reserved for those rare occurances where you happen to hang out with the direct fallout of an exploding atom bomb, I believe.) Most of the time, in an accident, you only determine how bad it was after the fact. At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before). How to get it out is where it gets even worse - most of the time, you scrap together everything that you determined to be affected in step two and put it in sealed containers, which isn't helpful if that thing is 'most of your own cells' (although the people around you will differ on that opinion). Your most likely prospect in terms of any kind of unusual exposure is to die slightly earlier and a lot shittier than you had anticipated. In conclusion, I would say that it's more of a "we simply don't fully understand what we unleash, so let's develop what we do understand" concern. Not a "omg, a castor drove through Italy, I'm gonna get cancer tomorrow" fear. > There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear. That almost made me LOL - Why is it "because of people like [me]"? Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
- mbq 14y ago
  I was trying to imply that conceptually there is no difference between 1kg and 10000kg of nuclear waste if the only that we do about it is to sit and cry that it would kill as all -- this way it certainly will finally end up smuggled and dumped on a random landfill. And it is just impossible to make humanity stop using any radioactive material. There are many good and realistic ideas how to use nuclear material way better than now and how to inactive and store it in a perfectly safe way, but this science is marginally supported (compared with "green" competitor) and decision makers are intimidated to avoid its implementation.

by mbq 14y ago

skore 14y ago

Absolutely agreed - but we can "solve" energy differently. Not so much for other applications. So nuclear waste in energy is completely avoidable. Not sure I understand your second paragraph.

ars 14y ago
> but we can "solve" energy differently Really? How? Just about every other technology is net negative on energy, so how do you plan to solve energy?
- skore 14y ago
  Oh, ok then. I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output. Instead, it seems like we're arguing for what would give us the perfect energy perpetuum mobile.
  - ars 14y ago
    > I thought this was a business discussion - cost input vs. benefit output It's not. It's a physics discussion: Energy produced vs pollution created.
    - skore 14y ago
      Hmm, this is slowly turning into word-twisting. Obviously, "pollution created" is a negative benefit output and "energy produced" is a positive one. I guess the actual problem in our discussion is that you have a profoundly different understanding of pollution since my cutoff is pretty much at "any nuclear waste".
      - ars 14y ago
        > since my cutoff is pretty much at "any nuclear waste" Really? So I guess there is not much point in talking to you further. (Although I guess other people are also reading these threads.) It might help your case if you explained why, but I'm betting it's irrational fear, not anything you could explain. Me, I prefer to measure my pollution in terms of damage caused, not fear. There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear.
        skore 14y ago
        Nah, fear isn't really the issue here, I would say that I have a rather calculated understanding of why I find radioactive waste so problematic (and since you asked, you'll have to endulge the full explanation). For me, it comes down to what kind of pollution we are talking about and radioactive pollution is particularly nasty to me as it represents a chaotic pollution that is just exceptionally hard to deal with. Let's say the simplest, non-chaotic, kind of pollution is "dirt on your shoe" - you know where it came from (that thing you just stepped in), you know where it is (you see it on your shoe), what it does (hardly anything, except look bad) and how to get it out (wash it off). With radioactive pollution, knowing where the pollution is coming from can already be a tough job - if you have a known leak, sure, that's where it's coming from. But often, you have to use a Geiger counter to detect it in the first place and often times, you then still have to figure out where the actual source is. Where it went is mostly a statistical science, which is only comforting if your arm chair is not close to the accident in question. If it is, it's highly distressing. Next up, it's still completely up for graps what it does - for humans, it can be anything from a challenged immune system to instant death, depending on the dose. (Although the latter is reserved for those rare occurances where you happen to hang out with the direct fallout of an exploding atom bomb, I believe.) Most of the time, in an accident, you only determine how bad it was after the fact. At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before). How to get it out is where it gets even worse - most of the time, you scrap together everything that you determined to be affected in step two and put it in sealed containers, which isn't helpful if that thing is 'most of your own cells' (although the people around you will differ on that opinion). Your most likely prospect in terms of any kind of unusual exposure is to die slightly earlier and a lot shittier than you had anticipated. In conclusion, I would say that it's more of a "we simply don't fully understand what we unleash, so let's develop what we do understand" concern. Not a "omg, a castor drove through Italy, I'm gonna get cancer tomorrow" fear. > There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear. That almost made me LOL - Why is it "because of people like [me]"? Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
mbq 14y ago
I was trying to imply that conceptually there is no difference between 1kg and 10000kg of nuclear waste if the only that we do about it is to sit and cry that it would kill as all -- this way it certainly will finally end up smuggled and dumped on a random landfill. And it is just impossible to make humanity stop using any radioactive material. There are many good and realistic ideas how to use nuclear material way better than now and how to inactive and store it in a perfectly safe way, but this science is marginally supported (compared with "green" competitor) and decision makers are intimidated to avoid its implementation.