Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#31

Post by mikestew »

calibas wrote: post #16
781 wrote: post #4

More FUD. Nuclear energy is the safest energy.

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is. Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house?

Assuming the alternative (which you conveniently left out) is the negative externalities of coal-fired power ending up on my doorstep? Yes, I'll take the nuke waste, thanks. Pull around on the left side of the house, please, so that you don't crush the sewer lines.

Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is.

Nothing in your comment contradicts that statement.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#32

Post by Krasnol »

jason_zig wrote: post #8

Does anyone else feel helpless when reading stuff like this? Is there anything I can do to make things better in these scenarios?

Help stopping that currently wide spread nuclear hype and escort this technology to it's final retirement.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#33

Post by thrower123 »

calibas wrote: post #16
781 wrote: post #4

More FUD. Nuclear energy is the safest energy.

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is. Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

Seal it in a lead box, and I'll put it in my basement, sure. I've already got radon leaching out of the bedrock, and a big bunch of bananas in my kitchen. I think I'm already picking up more rads from that, not to mention all the chest X-rays I had to do on a regular basis for a few years.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#34

Post by Krasnol »

ccffph wrote: post #27
calibas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is. Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

It's very worrying to see comments like this become more and more common on HN. Yes, I will take the waste. If it's in the containers we've developed specifically for this purpose, yes. It beats the current situation in the US where everyone stores waste on site because politicians can't decide where to put it because of people like you. Modern waste, with proper precautions, is safe for long term disposal and storag…

> world-nuclear.org

There is nothing more sad out there than linking to a homepage the nuclear lobby uses to drive this artificial nuclear hype we've seen here in the last months.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#35

Post by gnode »

_bxg1 wrote: post #17
jason_zig wrote: post #8

Does anyone else feel helpless when reading stuff like this? Is there anything I can do to make things better in these scenarios?

Vote. As futile as it feels, that's all any of us can do.

Voting is a blunt instrument; it's effective, but it's a poor signal. It says only one thing: I want this entity to wield power. If you want to sue someone, you don't become a judge, you bring a lawsuit.

If you want to cause political change, you need to bring something into the public discourse; make it known to the politicians and the electorate. People do this by writing their politicians, getting media attention, organising or joining political action groups, backing candidates, or even going into politics themselves.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#36

Post by sailfast »

erentz wrote: post #12

The US needs to go in and clean up this mess and should feel very obligated to move quickly on this, but is hasn’t. See also this article from 2015 [1] and folks may enjoy this video for the visuals of it [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pac... [2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=autMHvj3exA

That would be a nice thing to do, but per the article in 1983 the Marshall Islands traded US liability for nuclear issues as part of their move to self-government.

That is not to say that some Federal-level support is not warranted like other Superfund sites, but that it may not be the total and complete responsibility of the US Federal government to resolve the issue, as agreed to legally by both parties.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#37

Post by addicted »

acct1771 wrote: post #11
jason_zig wrote: post #8

Does anyone else feel helpless when reading stuff like this? Is there anything I can do to make things better in these scenarios?

Tell people around you to stop implicitly trusting centralized power.

Who goes around implicitly trusting central power. In any aspect of their lives.

I can literally think of no one I know who wouldn’t respond to me telling them “hey you should stop implicitly trusting central power” by asking what drugs I’m on if I think they implicitly trust central power.

I guess this straw man is necessary to create so some can beat it down, but as far as I can tell such people don’t actually exist.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#38

Post by irrational »

acct1771 wrote: post #11
jason_zig wrote: post #8

Does anyone else feel helpless when reading stuff like this? Is there anything I can do to make things better in these scenarios?

Tell people around you to stop implicitly trusting centralized power.

But whom has the power to clean something like this up except for centralized power?

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#39

Post by _bxg1 »

gnode wrote: post #35
_bxg1 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote. As futile as it feels, that's all any of us can do.

Voting is a blunt instrument; it's effective, but it's a poor signal. It says only one thing: I want this entity to wield power. If you want to sue someone, you don't become a judge, you bring a lawsuit. If you want to cause political change, you need to bring something into the public discourse; make it known to the politicians and the electorate. People do this by writing their politicians, getting media attention,…

Sure; I meant "vote" more as "participate in your democracy".

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#40

Post by mikestew »

Krasnol wrote: post #34
ccffph wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very worrying to see comments like this become more and more common on HN. Yes, I will take the waste. If it's in the containers we've developed specifically for this purpose, yes. It beats the current situation in the US where everyone stores waste on site because politicians can't decide where to put it because of people like you. Modern waste, with proper precautions, is safe for long term disposal and storag…

> world-nuclear.org There is nothing more sad out there than linking to a homepage the nuclear lobby uses to drive this artificial nuclear hype we've seen here in the last months.

That says nothing about the truthiness of the page. Let's hypothetically assume that every word on the page is true. Would one not expect the "nuclear lobby" to link to it? Let's assume every word on the page is a lie, but favorable toward nuclear energy. Would one not expect...

There is nothing more sad...

I can think of two things:

1. A lack of second order thinking.

2. Dead puppies.

Post reply on HN