4 ms·

Waste which will be here for many generations of humans and can seriously harm them is overblown? It never cases to amaze me how much blatant misinformation ci

by Krasnol 4mo ago

Waste which will be here for many generations of humans and can seriously harm them is overblown? It never cases to amaze me how much blatant misinformation circulates around this topic. Just a few years ago, nobody sane would have predicted Trump. How can anybody seriously predict what would happen to this waste in a few years? I'm not even talking about generations here.

throwthrowuknow 4mo ago
Like they said, if it’s properly stored and monitored it’s not going to harm anyone. If you’re worried about some kind of societal collapse leading to it being abandoned, well in that case there are much bigger problems that are more immediately dangerous.
- Krasnol 4mo ago
  Do you know it will still be properly monitored in 100 years? What about 1000? How would you know if there are even people left who know what it is?? May be societal collapse isn't a problem. Maybe we're having a nice new beginning but someone finds some nice, warm stuff?
  - mpweiher 4mo ago
    In 100 years: sure. Unless we have civilizational collapse in which case a bit of nuclear waste will be the least of our problems. It won't have to be monitored for a 1000 years. First, by that time the level of radioactivity is very low, and when it's in a deep-geological repository (like the ones we already use for vastly greater amounts of highly toxic chemicals that never decay) it is gone. We know enough about how geology works.
    - frm88 4mo ago
      We know enough about how geology works. We also know how a BLU-122 works. Can you be sure the US wouldn't use one on its allies in yet another moment of irrational tantrum? What about Russia?
      - mpweiher 4mo ago
        How does the BLU-122 relate to a deep geological repository, in your esteemed opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
    - Krasnol 4mo ago
      It won't be "the least of our problems", it would be an additional problem. The fuel and related will have to be monitored for 1000 years and more. Yes, we know how geology works, which is why we have found a single place where it might be safe. ONE.
      - mpweiher 4mo ago
        Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems. No it won't. That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological. For example: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
        Krasnol 4mo ago
        > Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems. How does this even help your argument? Yeah, we have a nuclear winter. 80% of the civilisation is dead. "Hey look, we've found warm stuff". A few years later: 10% of the population died of cancer. Are you kidding? > No it won't. Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel > That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological. The fact that your single example is Yucca mountain and even the US wasn't able to come up with another place and is still discussing this one, shows that there is not an abundance of places you can put it. Even in such a huge country like the USA. Other countries have the same issues and they are geological. Germany had a spot a few decades ago. Everybody thought it would be safe. It has to be evacuated now. An evacuation which will cost the taxpayer millions of Euros.
        throwthrowuknow 4mo ago
        Please explain how people in the midst of a nuclear winter aren’t going to be aware of what a radiation hazard is? Come on, just think for a moment before you say something.
  - throwthrowuknow 4mo ago
    Nice new beginning my foot. Go live in the woods without power, petrochemical fuel or modern technology for a year and then tell me what you think.
    - Krasnol 4mo ago
      Why should I when there are cheap solar panels and batteries out there?
      - throwthrowuknow 4mo ago
        Good luck making a solar panel without an industrial base.
        Krasnol 4mo ago
        Man, we're not in the 90s anymore...
palata 4mo ago
Again, destroy a dam and you get a catastrophe. Don't do anything in particular and watch how many people die in the mid-term due to climate change. It's all about risk management.
- leonidasrup 4mo ago
  The most deadly industrial accident was the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 26,000 to 240,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
  - oneshtein 4mo ago
    The dam is built to protect from floods.
- DANmode 4mo ago
  Is this a Katrina reference?
- Krasnol 4mo ago
  Yeah but the risk management of a dam is ridiculously small compared to waste which will be dangerous so far into future that we might not know if people will even know what it is. A dam damming water at a hill is obvious. Some warm stuff set up like something really special, is not.
  - palata 4mo ago
    Yet dams have killed more people than nuclear plants.
    - Krasnol 4mo ago
      They have been around a bit longer don't you think? How many nuclear actually killed is unknown because it's not as easy as: something happens, people drown. It's more like: something happens, a few die fast, the rest dies earlier, their children live shorter or have disabilities, their children also, and so on. Meanwhile collecting waste which will do the same for later generations who might not remember what nuclear energy even is.
Mawr 4mo ago
You realize we're literally dispersing coal, gas & gasoline fumes into the atmosphere that we all breathe, right? 24/7? Yeah, small amounts of solid waste sitting somewhere is as much of a non issue as can be.
- Krasnol 4mo ago
  Yeah I know this Shillenberger tactic of playing "you love coal because you hate nuclear". It is no argument or discussion happening in real life now. It is nuclear vs. renewables and nuclear is losing. ...also those are not small amounts. The fuel may be a small amount but there is much much more that needs to disappear in holes we don't have.
bethekidyouwant 4mo ago
Correct as long as we still have Geiger counters.. I’m not sure what kind of apocalypse you’re planning for. Maybe get a radon detection kit for your basement.
- Krasnol 4mo ago
  I'm not planning for anything because you can't plan for the next decade atm. How would you plan for 100s and 1000s of years? We should REDUCE the danger to those generations and not make it larger for no sane reason.
  - mpweiher 4mo ago
    Nuclear is REDUCING the overall danger. Because the alternatives are much more dangerous.
    - Krasnol 4mo ago
      How are renewables more dangerous?
      - mpweiher 4mo ago
        "How" is not really a relevant question in this context. They are, empirically. Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe, meaning it doesn't really matter that much which of these you use, the overall risk is always going to be very low, and the relative numbers are going to be very sensitive to small changes or variations in analyses. Hydro is significantly more dangerous, and all the fossil fuels are tremendously more dangerous. Due to the fact that intermittent renewables usually require fossil backup for that majority of countries that don't have abundant hydro, you have to take that into account. A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html A 2019 study shows that reduced use of nuclear energy post-Fukushima cost hundreds of thousands of lives. https://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Kharecha.Sato_Jpn.Ger_post.Fukushima_EI.CSAS.pop.sci_FINAL_6.15.19.pdf https://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Kharecha.Sato_Jpn.Ger_post.Fuku... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... Whereas the WHO predicts that there will be no measurable health effects on the general Japanese public from Fukushima, and the majority of negative health consequences were from the unnecessary evacuations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201... Radiophobia kills! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia

by Krasnol 4mo ago

throwthrowuknow 4mo ago

Like they said, if it’s properly stored and monitored it’s not going to harm anyone. If you’re worried about some kind of societal collapse leading to it being abandoned, well in that case there are much bigger problems that are more immediately dangerous.

Krasnol 4mo ago
Do you know it will still be properly monitored in 100 years? What about 1000? How would you know if there are even people left who know what it is?? May be societal collapse isn't a problem. Maybe we're having a nice new beginning but someone finds some nice, warm stuff?
- mpweiher 4mo ago
  In 100 years: sure. Unless we have civilizational collapse in which case a bit of nuclear waste will be the least of our problems. It won't have to be monitored for a 1000 years. First, by that time the level of radioactivity is very low, and when it's in a deep-geological repository (like the ones we already use for vastly greater amounts of highly toxic chemicals that never decay) it is gone. We know enough about how geology works.
  - frm88 4mo ago
    We know enough about how geology works. We also know how a BLU-122 works. Can you be sure the US wouldn't use one on its allies in yet another moment of irrational tantrum? What about Russia?
    - mpweiher 4mo ago
      How does the BLU-122 relate to a deep geological repository, in your esteemed opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
  - Krasnol 4mo ago
    It won't be "the least of our problems", it would be an additional problem. The fuel and related will have to be monitored for 1000 years and more. Yes, we know how geology works, which is why we have found a single place where it might be safe. ONE.
    - mpweiher 4mo ago
      Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems. No it won't. That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological. For example: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
      - Krasnol 4mo ago
        > Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems. How does this even help your argument? Yeah, we have a nuclear winter. 80% of the civilisation is dead. "Hey look, we've found warm stuff". A few years later: 10% of the population died of cancer. Are you kidding? > No it won't. Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel > That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological. The fact that your single example is Yucca mountain and even the US wasn't able to come up with another place and is still discussing this one, shows that there is not an abundance of places you can put it. Even in such a huge country like the USA. Other countries have the same issues and they are geological. Germany had a spot a few decades ago. Everybody thought it would be safe. It has to be evacuated now. An evacuation which will cost the taxpayer millions of Euros.
        throwthrowuknow 4mo ago
        Please explain how people in the midst of a nuclear winter aren’t going to be aware of what a radiation hazard is? Come on, just think for a moment before you say something.
- throwthrowuknow 4mo ago
  Nice new beginning my foot. Go live in the woods without power, petrochemical fuel or modern technology for a year and then tell me what you think.
  - Krasnol 4mo ago
    Why should I when there are cheap solar panels and batteries out there?
    - throwthrowuknow 4mo ago
      Good luck making a solar panel without an industrial base.
      - Krasnol 4mo ago
        Man, we're not in the 90s anymore...

palata 4mo ago

Again, destroy a dam and you get a catastrophe. Don't do anything in particular and watch how many people die in the mid-term due to climate change. It's all about risk management.

leonidasrup 4mo ago
The most deadly industrial accident was the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 26,000 to 240,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
- oneshtein 4mo ago
  The dam is built to protect from floods.
DANmode 4mo ago
Is this a Katrina reference?
Krasnol 4mo ago
Yeah but the risk management of a dam is ridiculously small compared to waste which will be dangerous so far into future that we might not know if people will even know what it is. A dam damming water at a hill is obvious. Some warm stuff set up like something really special, is not.
- palata 4mo ago
  Yet dams have killed more people than nuclear plants.
  - Krasnol 4mo ago
    They have been around a bit longer don't you think? How many nuclear actually killed is unknown because it's not as easy as: something happens, people drown. It's more like: something happens, a few die fast, the rest dies earlier, their children live shorter or have disabilities, their children also, and so on. Meanwhile collecting waste which will do the same for later generations who might not remember what nuclear energy even is.

Mawr 4mo ago

You realize we're literally dispersing coal, gas & gasoline fumes into the atmosphere that we all breathe, right? 24/7? Yeah, small amounts of solid waste sitting somewhere is as much of a non issue as can be.

Krasnol 4mo ago
Yeah I know this Shillenberger tactic of playing "you love coal because you hate nuclear". It is no argument or discussion happening in real life now. It is nuclear vs. renewables and nuclear is losing. ...also those are not small amounts. The fuel may be a small amount but there is much much more that needs to disappear in holes we don't have.

bethekidyouwant 4mo ago

Correct as long as we still have Geiger counters.. I’m not sure what kind of apocalypse you’re planning for. Maybe get a radon detection kit for your basement.

Krasnol 4mo ago
I'm not planning for anything because you can't plan for the next decade atm. How would you plan for 100s and 1000s of years? We should REDUCE the danger to those generations and not make it larger for no sane reason.
- mpweiher 4mo ago
  Nuclear is REDUCING the overall danger. Because the alternatives are much more dangerous.
  - Krasnol 4mo ago
    How are renewables more dangerous?
    - mpweiher 4mo ago
      "How" is not really a relevant question in this context. They are, empirically. Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe, meaning it doesn't really matter that much which of these you use, the overall risk is always going to be very low, and the relative numbers are going to be very sensitive to small changes or variations in analyses. Hydro is significantly more dangerous, and all the fossil fuels are tremendously more dangerous. Due to the fact that intermittent renewables usually require fossil backup for that majority of countries that don't have abundant hydro, you have to take that into account. A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html A 2019 study shows that reduced use of nuclear energy post-Fukushima cost hundreds of thousands of lives. https://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Kharecha.Sato_Jpn.Ger_post.Fukushima_EI.CSAS.pop.sci_FINAL_6.15.19.pdf https://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Kharecha.Sato_Jpn.Ger_post.Fuku... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... Whereas the WHO predicts that there will be no measurable health effects on the general Japanese public from Fukushima, and the majority of negative health consequences were from the unnecessary evacuations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201... Radiophobia kills! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia