3 ms·
> You've managed to prove my point in four words and a URL. I'm sure the proof is obvious to you, but how about explaining it for the rest of us?
by nollidge 14y ago
> You've managed to prove my point in four words and a URL.
I'm sure the proof is obvious to you, but how about explaining it for the rest of us?
- thoughtsimple 14y agoThis might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository It is anything but a solved problem. And of course none of this talks about decommissioning reactors and what to do with the low level nuclear waste that is the decommissioned reactor.
- jholman 14y agoYes. Plus, there's an epistemological asymmetry here. We can know that it's not yet solved (and I would agree that we do know this right now). We cannot know that it is solved, at least not without waiting tens of thousands of years. Even if we escape current frying pans, we'll still have a fire to deal with. So I agree with onemorepassword's claim that nawitus's comment is indicative of dishonesty, because it demonstrates a level of confidence that no reasonable well-informed person would have, about the human ability to control events in advance, for a hundred thousand years. (I don't agree with all of what onemorepassword says, especially the implication that the pro-nuclear crowd is more dishonest than the anti-nuclear.... 99% of the utterances by the anti-nuclear crowd are VERY dishonest.)