Preferences

bobmcnamara parent
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 harmed. You see we've lost track of radioactive waste in the past. And humans are remarkably curious. Often we've figured it out before anyone was harmed. Sometimes sadly not. But the harm is the concern, not the lack of knowledge of harm.


Manuel_D
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 underground? A even if a buried waste canister spontaneously combusts, how does the waste make it through half a kilometer of rock? In order for an unknown harm to occur, harm first has to actually occur.

This kind of appeal to an unknown harm can be used to arbitrarily object to anything.

"We need to stop building solar panels and wind turbines because they have the potential to cause an unknown harm. You disagree that these systems have the potential to cause harm? Well of course you can't know this, because it's an unknown harm that we're trying to prevent. How can you possibly disprove the existence of an unknown harm?"

bobmcnamara OP
>> 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://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.

Manuel_D
> 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.

Can you provide even one example where nuclear waste from power generation - not nuclear weapons production - got people sick in the United States?

bobmcnamara OP
The people here primarily got sick because their machining waste wasn't recognized as dangerous, it wasn't appropriately collected, spread through the site, and hury people that didn't even work in those areas.

https://www.ncronline.org/earthbeat/government-workers-were-...

https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article49479255.html

The local uranium mills were primarily weapons related -fuel for breeder reactors.

For the power industry we have to drive to the other side of the state, over to Hematite, where each time a former employee comes down with any rare cancer from a long list, it's assumed to from working at the plant.

What about mining waste causing increased cancer and largely poisoning a river? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spi...

"Pre-burnup doesn't count" is exactly what an abusive ex would say.

Manuel_D
Yet again, none of the examples you've posted are contamination from nuclear waste from power generation. Pre-burnup radiation exposure is not nuclear waste. This isn't a pedantic distinction, someone getting contaminated while manufacturing fuel rods is a totally different failure mode than what we're discussing about waste buried deep underground.

> What about mining waste causing increased cancer and largely poisoning a river?

What about it? Mining copper and rare earth minerals for magnets is polluting too. Producing aluminum to build transmission lines is also polluting. Mining, in general, is a pretty dirty industry. But surely nobody is suggesting we stop building electric motors or transmission lines? Uranium mining is not an exception in this regard.

You've given 3 examples, none of them are contamination from spent nuclear waste from power generation.

bobmcnamara OP
> none of them are contamination from spent nuclear waste from power generation.

I have no more energy to give people who cannot be precise with their requirements. I get enough of that at work.

bobmcnamara OP
> 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.

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.

Manuel_D
> Please note that these are both chemically and radioactively harmful to people.

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.

This item has no comments currently.