91–100 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I look forward to your revolutionary nuclear waste teleportation device.
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_re...
It's not even open yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2/3/4) Please see historical data above regarding three burial sites. Practically today, these sites are built by mining. 5) Industry term. Operationalizing any significant system will involve human beings, and with it their workplace culture. You can read about it here: https://mshasafetyservices.com/fostering-a-culture-of-safety... . Many mining hese were written in blood. 6) No, the concern is that people may be h…
The example you linked above is disposal of nuclear weapons waste, not nuclear power generation. This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation. And again, the question remains how people may be harmed by nuclear waste buried in bedrock half a kilometer unde…
Please note that these are both chemically and radioactively harmful to people.
> Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation.
That's what they said in the 00s, 90s, 80s, 70s...
> In order for an unknown harm to occur, harm first has to actually occur.
Nuclear power is an incredible technology, but understand that the nuclear industry has done little to earn trust. Just feels like an abusive ex plastered on the porch shouting "it'll be difficult this time I've changed" and doesn't inspire confidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The example you linked above is disposal of nuclear weapons waste, not nuclear power generation. This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation. And again, the question remains how people may be harmed by nuclear waste buried in bedrock half a kilometer unde…
> This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Please note that these are both chemically and radioactively harmful to people. > Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation. That's what they said in the 00s, 90s, 80s, 70s... > In order for an unknown harm to occur, harm first has to actually occur.…
Again, the point is that your link is about disposal of plutonium from nuclear weapons productions. Not spent uranium fuel from power generation.
> Nuclear power is an incredible technology, but understand that the nuclear industry has done little to earn trust. Just feels like an abusive ex plastered on the porch shouting "it'll be difficult this time I've changed" and doesn't inspire confidence.
Care to elaborate on what you mean by this? Because even if you include Chernobyl, nuclear power is one of the safest form of energy generation: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy. It's 100x safer than dams. Include only western plants and it's the safest form of energy generation.
It's not like an abusive ex promising to have changed. It's a lot more like a very respectful partner that your hippie friends hate for incoherent reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the important point is that we already have infrastructure deployed to detect and remove uranium from the water supply on account of naturally occurring uranium.
That's...not a very good point.
So what happens if uranium from nuclear waste somehow works its way into the water supply? We'll detect it and remove it in water treatment, just like how we remove contamination from naturally occurring uranium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2/3/4) Please see historical data above regarding three burial sites. Practically today, these sites are built by mining. 5) Industry term. Operationalizing any significant system will involve human beings, and with it their workplace culture. You can read about it here: https://mshasafetyservices.com/fostering-a-culture-of-safety... . Many mining hese were written in blood. 6) No, the concern is that people may be h…
The example you linked above is disposal of nuclear weapons waste, not nuclear power generation. This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation. And again, the question remains how people may be harmed by nuclear waste buried in bedrock half a kilometer unde…
> Care to elaborate on what you mean by this? Because even if you include Chernobyl, nuclear power is one of the safest form of energy generation: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy. It's 100x safer than dams. Include only western plants and it's the safest form of energy generation.
I should also add that on average nuclear power releases less radioactivity than coal.
I grew up in a place and time where nuclear waste was routinely dumped, records lost, EPA government consultants lied, and people got sick. Nobody was held accountable other than token fines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finland has two other disposal sites in operation since the 90s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
Yes, but when we want to store something in the range of million years, it is a bit early to say that 30 years are sufficient as a ultimate proof that nothing leaks. Now I believe it can be done safely, but only if monitored all the time with good care. But that is expensive and humans tend to skimp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The example you linked above is disposal of nuclear weapons waste, not nuclear power generation. This isn't even the same material (plutonium vs uranium). Sure, there were plenty of bad nuclear waste disposal programs in the early cold war, but this has quite limited relevance to nuclear power generation. And again, the question remains how people may be harmed by nuclear waste buried in bedrock half a kilometer unde…
>> Nuclear power is an incredible technology, but understand that the nuclear industry has done little to earn trust. Just feels like an abusive ex plastered on the porch shouting "it'll be different this time I've changed" and doesn't inspire confidence. > Care to elaborate on what you mean by this? Because even if you include Chernobyl, nuclear power is one of the safest form of energy generation: https://ourworldi…
Can you provide even one example where nuclear waste from power generation - not nuclear weapons production - got people sick in the United States?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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_re...
> It's been done before, it's not revolutionary engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re ... It's not even open yet.
Richard Rhodes brought this up in an interview. He made it a point for critics who say nuclear waste can't be safely disposed of through burial. Well, we have pretty good natural evidence that nuclear fission products can remain buried and undisturbed for a pretty long time!
(I'm pro-nuclear but that's a hilariously bad argument.)
> only known natural nuclear reactor um, stars?