3 ms·

Over in Washington, the Hanford nuclear site is a big demonstration that we haven't really solved the holistic problems of nuclear waste. (Technical, financial

by Terr_ 2y ago

Over in Washington, the Hanford nuclear site is a big demonstration that we haven't really solved the holistic problems of nuclear waste. (Technical, financial, legal, political.) Even just trying to ship it elsewhere for processing gets blocked by other states and cities.

wbl 2y ago
The Hanford site could be solved with a bunch of cement but we promised to restore. Now of course we don't dump waste the same way.
- bb88 2y ago
  That's the joke with the 3-eyed fish on the Simpsons: "It's all fine. You're supposed to be okay with nuclear waste in your environment." I kinda want to get this Simpson's Jersey with a 3-eyed fish as the mascot that says Hanford or something on the back of it. I was thinking it should say maybe CESIUM 137 on the back. https://www.ebay.com/itm/373450099460 https://www.ebay.com/itm/373450099460
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Relevant clip, Mr. Burns' political ad claiming Blinky the three-eyed fish is, if anything, benefitting from the radiation. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NMFhxFDCNTc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NMFhxFDCNTc
bb88 2y ago
Nuclear waste is much like the national debt. Future generations will be dealing with it. And that's certainly the case with Hanford.
zizee 2y ago
Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion that radioactive wastes is both super dangerous, and lasts forever. But this is not true. The super dangerous stuff doesn't hang around that long, whilst the stuff that does isn't that dangerous. The super-duper dangerous radioactive waste has a relatively short half-life, and volume. The vast amount of waste is fairly benign. It's a solvable problem.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Perhaps, but the world is full of examples of problems that are/were "solvable" but remained unsolved for long periods of time causing a lot of harm. The fact that the problem still exists at all is an indicator it's not actually that easy.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Like Universal healthcare? Very hard problem, we should learn from all those other 150 countries that have it. Very smart people. Wish I saved the quote, but I remember reading something to the tone of "Everybody across all lines wants healthcare. But 8 rich people disagree, so it's complicated".
- taurath 2y ago
  Radiation and long term consequences of radioactive contamination is very specifically terrifying to the general public because you can neither see nor feel it happening and the consequences may not happen until much later. Both of those effects create an outsized defensive response that is not irrational at all but just most people are unable to modulate their perceptions of the size of threats like that.
  - zizee 2y ago
    It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term). Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation strategies put in place. Current strategies are outsized compared to the risk. The anti-nuclear environmental movement will go down in history as one of the biggest own goals. If nuclear power had have had continued investment into engineering improvements, the world would be in a much better place WRT climate change.
    - bb88 2y ago
      What's super interesting along this line of thought are the events that happened in Flint, Michigan circa 2014 when the local government (who were unelected emergency managers) decided to switch the water source of Flint. This water reacted with the lead pipes causing lead levels to spike in the water supply. It's not the outsized risk of lead levels people are necessarily worried about. It's the outsized risk of some health risk that gets covered up, lied about, or dismissed by those in charge. There appears to be a high correlation between nuclear accidents and government and political coverups.

by Terr_ 2y ago

wbl 2y ago

The Hanford site could be solved with a bunch of cement but we promised to restore. Now of course we don't dump waste the same way.

bb88 2y ago
That's the joke with the 3-eyed fish on the Simpsons: "It's all fine. You're supposed to be okay with nuclear waste in your environment." I kinda want to get this Simpson's Jersey with a 3-eyed fish as the mascot that says Hanford or something on the back of it. I was thinking it should say maybe CESIUM 137 on the back. https://www.ebay.com/itm/373450099460 https://www.ebay.com/itm/373450099460
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Relevant clip, Mr. Burns' political ad claiming Blinky the three-eyed fish is, if anything, benefitting from the radiation. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NMFhxFDCNTc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NMFhxFDCNTc

bb88 2y ago

Nuclear waste is much like the national debt. Future generations will be dealing with it. And that's certainly the case with Hanford.

zizee 2y ago

Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion that radioactive wastes is both super dangerous, and lasts forever. But this is not true. The super dangerous stuff doesn't hang around that long, whilst the stuff that does isn't that dangerous. The super-duper dangerous radioactive waste has a relatively short half-life, and volume. The vast amount of waste is fairly benign. It's a solvable problem.

Terr_ 2y ago
Perhaps, but the world is full of examples of problems that are/were "solvable" but remained unsolved for long periods of time causing a lot of harm. The fact that the problem still exists at all is an indicator it's not actually that easy.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Like Universal healthcare? Very hard problem, we should learn from all those other 150 countries that have it. Very smart people. Wish I saved the quote, but I remember reading something to the tone of "Everybody across all lines wants healthcare. But 8 rich people disagree, so it's complicated".
taurath 2y ago
Radiation and long term consequences of radioactive contamination is very specifically terrifying to the general public because you can neither see nor feel it happening and the consequences may not happen until much later. Both of those effects create an outsized defensive response that is not irrational at all but just most people are unable to modulate their perceptions of the size of threats like that.
- zizee 2y ago
  It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term). Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation strategies put in place. Current strategies are outsized compared to the risk. The anti-nuclear environmental movement will go down in history as one of the biggest own goals. If nuclear power had have had continued investment into engineering improvements, the world would be in a much better place WRT climate change.
  - bb88 2y ago
    What's super interesting along this line of thought are the events that happened in Flint, Michigan circa 2014 when the local government (who were unelected emergency managers) decided to switch the water source of Flint. This water reacted with the lead pipes causing lead levels to spike in the water supply. It's not the outsized risk of lead levels people are necessarily worried about. It's the outsized risk of some health risk that gets covered up, lied about, or dismissed by those in charge. There appears to be a high correlation between nuclear accidents and government and political coverups.