4 ms·

No answer to the problems that: A) The area is not known to be geologically stable over the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....) B)

by worik 1y ago

No answer to the problems that: A) The area is not known to be geologically stable over the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....) B) There is no containment vessel that can last that long I get tired of the wishful thinking. Being charitable as describing it as that. In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up, perhaps people then will have forgotten us. If not, they will not forgive us And so unnecessary

UltraSane 1y ago
" the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....)" This is the the lie that I'm really tired of people repeating. Nuclear waste isn't THAT dangerous and doesn't have to be kept perfectly isolated for THAT long. "In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up," You should really be more worried about the 36 billion tons of CO2 we are spewing into the atmosphere every year instead of a TINY amount of nuclear waste many thousands of years in the future. You are like someone with a malignant tumor worrying about the risks of radiation therapy.
- worik 1y ago
  The vast majority of nuclear waste needs to be stored only hundreds of years. But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium There is no answer to that, and no amount of arguing by analogy, argumentum ad hominem nor wishful thinking can make that go away It is a very good thing we do not need nuclear power
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    "But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium" Stop repeating this lie. We absolutely need Nuclear. It is the only way to eliminate CO2 emissions from electricity production completely.
    - worik 1y ago
      > Stop repeating this lie. It is not a lie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product Wishful thinking on your part
      - UltraSane 1y ago
        The longest lived fission products are actually the LEAST radioactive. This inverse relationship exists because of the fundamental relationship between half-life and radioactivity. The longer a radioisotope's half-life, the lower its specific activity (radioactivity per unit mass) You are like a firefighter who opposes using water (nuclear energy) to extinguish fires (reduce CO2 emissions) because people might drown.

by worik 1y ago

UltraSane 1y ago

" the extraordinarily long time periods necessary. (Nowhere is....)" This is the the lie that I'm really tired of people repeating. Nuclear waste isn't THAT dangerous and doesn't have to be kept perfectly isolated for THAT long. "In the future, 600 generations from now, when the poisons we lay down now are bubbling up," You should really be more worried about the 36 billion tons of CO2 we are spewing into the atmosphere every year instead of a TINY amount of nuclear waste many thousands of years in the future. You are like someone with a malignant tumor worrying about the risks of radiation therapy.

worik 1y ago
The vast majority of nuclear waste needs to be stored only hundreds of years. But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium There is no answer to that, and no amount of arguing by analogy, argumentum ad hominem nor wishful thinking can make that go away It is a very good thing we do not need nuclear power
- UltraSane 1y ago
  "But there is still plenty that needs to be stored for hundreds of millennium" Stop repeating this lie. We absolutely need Nuclear. It is the only way to eliminate CO2 emissions from electricity production completely.
  - worik 1y ago
    > Stop repeating this lie. It is not a lie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product Wishful thinking on your part
    - UltraSane 1y ago
      The longest lived fission products are actually the LEAST radioactive. This inverse relationship exists because of the fundamental relationship between half-life and radioactivity. The longer a radioisotope's half-life, the lower its specific activity (radioactivity per unit mass) You are like a firefighter who opposes using water (nuclear energy) to extinguish fires (reduce CO2 emissions) because people might drown.