• Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    practical, long-term, solution to nuclear waste

    This depends on the type of waste, and how radioactive it is. The overwhelming majority of nuclear waste is low level, and capable of being safely stored in steel/concrete casks. The higher level stuff can be safely stored in exhausted mines.

    demonstrate that a nuclear bomb is not a military target, sure

    All power sources are inherently military targets, so you’ve defined an impossible task.

    Additionally, you can design a plant to be a lower risk target in the case of an attack. We’ve had decades of research put into how to make these plants safe.

    https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf

    https://theconversation.com/how-to-protect-nuclear-plants-from-terrorists-57094

    We just saw Japan release nuclear waste into the ocean for lack of a solution

    I’m not thrilled with it either, but the waste they are releasing is diluted.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66610977

    The water they are releasing is basically no different than the radioactivity of normal sea water.

    • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would also emphasize that nuclear reactor =/= nuclear bomb. Power reactors cannot under any circumstances cause a nuclear explosion.

        • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is what humans have been saying about auto exhaust, factory emissions, agricultural emissions etc for a hundred years. It’s turned out wrong in every way.

          (edit) Now that I think about it, isn’t your position basically the same as the right wing position on climate change? That even if it exists humans are too small to actually effect the huge atmosphere so it’s not human caused.

          “The amount of X that industry is dumping into the Y is insignificant and nothing to be concerned about” is an inherently flawed argument, and all the worse when there are 8 billion people on the planet.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is what humans have been saying about auto exhaust, factory emissions, agricultural emissions etc for a hundred years. It’s turned out wrong in every way.

            There is a key difference, fossil fuel use inherently ends up leaving pollution in the atmosphere, nuclear power does not do anything of the same.

            it, isn’t your position basically the same as the right wing position on climate change?

            Nope. It’s not even close

            That even if it exists humans are too small to actually effect the huge atmosphere so it’s not human caused.

            That’s not even close to what I am saying.

            All sea water is radioactive already, and has been since before humans got nukes. And thats because all sea water has tritium at low levels. When we release water that is at the same level as sea water, nothing changes.

            It’s like adding a red ball or playdoh to a red ball of playdoh. There’s not going to be a difference. Fossil fuels on the other hand would be like adding a black ball of playdoh to a red one.