4 ms·

1) the assumption that because something can be done safely it will be done safely 2) transportation to the site: https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plu

1) the assumption that because something can be done safely it will be done safely 2) transportation to the site: https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pdf https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pd... 3) exploding waste barrels due to corner cutting in kitty litter selection exposing surface workers and contaminating the work area - only 1/2 mile down but this type of accident is depth independent https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump... 4) fires 5) lack of a safety culture 6) communicating to future peoples not to mine here 7) long term structural stability and management (ex: Morsleben radioactive waste repository and Schacht Asse II)

roughly 1y ago
Just to call it explicitly, because I think this is one of the big points of misunderstanding between pro- and anti-nuclear people (take that as a very rough categorization and not an accusation) - There is a difference between “something can be done correctly” and “something is likely to be done correctly.” Nuclear advocates I’ve read tend to argue the former - it’s possible to have safe reactors, it’s possible to keep the waste sequestered safely, there’s not a technical reason why nuclear is inherently unsafe. Skeptics tend to be making a different argument - not that it’s not possible to do things safely and correctly, but that in our current late-capitalist milieu, it’s almost impossible that we _will_. It’s not an argument about capability, it’s an argument about will and what happens in bureaucracies, both public and private.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  Yeah, if waste management was as viable as proponents claim, places like Hanford [0] would already be an inactive site with a memorial park on top. Whether it's technology, economics, or politics, clearly the state of the art is deficient because we currently have persistent deficiencies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    It's politics. The US already built a waste site in Yucca Mountain, but never bothered to actually use it for political reasons. Digging a shaft half a kilometer into bedrock and sealing it is not state of the art.
Manuel_D 1y ago
2) I asked about waste buried in the ground, not in transit. 3) if a waste barrel explodes, somehow, underground how does the waste make it's way through a mile of bedrock? 4) Again, how does a fire bring the wast up through a mile of bedrock? 5) This is just a vague statement. 6) So the concern is that future society will forget that this is a waste site, mine a mile deep and retrieve waste, and never figure out that the waste is bad for them? This is rather specific hypothetical that IMO demonstrates just how hard it is for a nuclear waste site to result in contamination.
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago
  I look forward to your revolutionary nuclear waste teleportation device.
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    Teleportation? You dig a tunnel underground, put the waste there, and fill the tunnel. It's been done before, it's not revolutionary engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...
    - lukan 1y ago
      The point was, you cannot ignore the risks of transportation, if you only have some safe spots to burry it. And what you linked is still under construction. We don't know yet, if it really works safe long term, or if there will be future costs.
      - Manuel_D 1y ago
        Finland has two other disposal sites in operation since the 90s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
        lukan 1y ago
AtlasBarfed 1y ago
It's kind of the nature of a heavily regulated safety industry. The industry comes to resent the safety regulations. And therefore they will fail. It's not even a a matter of mundane human error when executing procedures over and over again. It's that the entire managerial pyramid gradually and slowly erodes
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

roughly 1y ago

Just to call it explicitly, because I think this is one of the big points of misunderstanding between pro- and anti-nuclear people (take that as a very rough categorization and not an accusation) - There is a difference between “something can be done correctly” and “something is likely to be done correctly.” Nuclear advocates I’ve read tend to argue the former - it’s possible to have safe reactors, it’s possible to keep the waste sequestered safely, there’s not a technical reason why nuclear is inherently unsafe. Skeptics tend to be making a different argument - not that it’s not possible to do things safely and correctly, but that in our current late-capitalist milieu, it’s almost impossible that we _will_. It’s not an argument about capability, it’s an argument about will and what happens in bureaucracies, both public and private.

Terr_ 1y ago
Yeah, if waste management was as viable as proponents claim, places like Hanford [0] would already be an inactive site with a memorial park on top. Whether it's technology, economics, or politics, clearly the state of the art is deficient because we currently have persistent deficiencies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  It's politics. The US already built a waste site in Yucca Mountain, but never bothered to actually use it for political reasons. Digging a shaft half a kilometer into bedrock and sealing it is not state of the art.

Manuel_D 1y ago

2) I asked about waste buried in the ground, not in transit. 3) if a waste barrel explodes, somehow, underground how does the waste make it's way through a mile of bedrock? 4) Again, how does a fire bring the wast up through a mile of bedrock? 5) This is just a vague statement. 6) So the concern is that future society will forget that this is a waste site, mine a mile deep and retrieve waste, and never figure out that the waste is bad for them? This is rather specific hypothetical that IMO demonstrates just how hard it is for a nuclear waste site to result in contamination.

AtlasBarfed 1y ago
I look forward to your revolutionary nuclear waste teleportation device.
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  Teleportation? You dig a tunnel underground, put the waste there, and fill the tunnel. It's been done before, it's not revolutionary engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...
  - lukan 1y ago
    The point was, you cannot ignore the risks of transportation, if you only have some safe spots to burry it. And what you linked is still under construction. We don't know yet, if it really works safe long term, or if there will be future costs.
    - Manuel_D 1y ago
      Finland has two other disposal sites in operation since the 90s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
      - lukan 1y ago

AtlasBarfed 1y ago

It's kind of the nature of a heavily regulated safety industry. The industry comes to resent the safety regulations. And therefore they will fail. It's not even a a matter of mundane human error when executing procedures over and over again. It's that the entire managerial pyramid gradually and slowly erodes

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]