this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
583 points (90.9% liked)

World News

38188 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Waste sites will need to be monitored for like a thousand years to prevent everything from natural disaster leakage to terrorist aquisition of nuclear materials

Or build breeder reactors to convert the waste back into fuel and eliminate it entirely. Building nuclear power would literally reduce the amount of nuclear waste we have versus doing nothing.

And yet, all these pseudoscience anti nuclear people who talk about nuclear waste all the time don't seem to be advocating for that. Curious, isn't it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Look the psuedoscience anti nuclear people aren't going to be what kills nuclear power.

The problem is the option is to "replace pseudo science oil barons with pseudo science nuclear power barons." Society isn't largely run by scientists, its run by lawyers and business idiots.

If you operate under the assumption nuclear will be treated more carefully and delicately than oil, well I too would like to live in that star trek communism universe.

It will get dumped in water supplies. It will end up in food supplies. The reality is there is a difference between "looks good on paper" and "even some lawyer who doesn't believe in germ theory won't fuck it up".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That's a very valid point, but it isn't unique to nuclear. Solar panel manufacturing produces some nasty chemical waste. Some might be manufactured using hydrofluoric acid even, which scares the living shit out of me.

There are going to be safety and waste issues with everything, and they're going to be different types of hazards. I would rather drink water contaminated with some nuclear waste than have contact with hydrofluoric acid. Ideally I'd like neither.

I'm not entirely sure what the solution is. It's hardly worse than oil (which also uses HF!), but that's not adequate. What we need is regulations and regulators that make it cheaper to throw as much safety factors as possible on something vs pay fines for violations. I'm confident we have the technology needed, we just need to make sure it's actually used.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the pro nuclear people managed to build something that actually eliminates nuclear waste, it would take away most arguments of the anti nuclear people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html

The technology exists, and has for decades. It wasn't economical so it wasn't considered for commercialization, although some companies are looking at it now.

If the anti nuclear people actually bothered to do proper research, perhaps we would've had enough support and outcry to build more of these reactors over the last several decades.