this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
135 points (95.9% liked)
World News
32317 readers
895 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem with nuclear is nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is stored in barrels in caves and buried. It remains radioactive for thousands of years. By creating nuclear waste we are forcing 100 generations after us to live with this nuclear waste. I don't know all the details but they say it's "safe."
Hard to believe how safe something can be from an inconvenient earthquake or terrorist attack.
Those are talking points from like, weeks after nuclear became a thing. How are people still parroting them to this day???
True. Most nuclear waste is contained on the site that created it. It tends only to be moved when the site is decommissioned. Most countries do not have a long term storage plan.
Hope that updates the talking points the way you were looking for.
Funny how everyone is immediately concerned with a few thousands of cubic meters of solid waste that literally loses its harm exponentially quickly and we can store underground while all the billions of tons of toxic liquid and gaseous waste coming from a sleuth of industrial applications (including renewables production) constantly being pumped in the biosphere never get a mention
I could be wrong but I thought rate of decay was a logarithmic function, not exponential.
Rate of decay for a specific isotope is constant, so its abundance decays exponentially. Of course a species can transmute in a new radionuclide so the process in total will not be exactly exponential, but pretty close. Seen on a log scale it's awfully close to a straight line
This link shows that the number of nuclides decreases at a slower rate as time goes on. Opposite of an exponential function.
As time progresses the rate at which the nuclear waste decays into innert matter is slower and slower. This is not at all an exponential rate.
So I don't think it's correct to say "loses its harm exponentially."
It "loses its harm" more slowly as time goes on
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/31-5-half-life-and-activity/
Sorry what? That link literally explains the exponential decay of radioisotopes.
Exponential decay is not the same as "exponentially losing its harm"
It very slowly "loses its harm" and as time progresses, it gets even slower.
The inverse of an exponential function is still an exponential function.
The harm of ionizing radiation is given by the activity of the source. Which decays exponentially. You should not go on the internet lecturing people you don't know about things you don't understand.
Also, you moved the goalpost: first you claimed waste "doesn't decay exponentially" and then without acknowledging it, you now claim that "exponential decay is not the same as losing harm exponentially"
I concede that it is exponential and not logarithmic, but the original statement of yours "loses its harm exponentially" is what got us going down this tangent. I think that statement is misleading, because the truth is that the waste loses its harm exponentially slower as time goes on.
I don't think you understand the concept of exponential, or radioactivity for that matter tbh. The statement is completely truthful.
Lol OK buddy, I went to school for this and worked in a power plant.
Sure LMAO
Wrong.
https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/lhHHbgIy9jU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I watched that video, and while I agree that nuclear waste is safer than fossils fuels, there is still a non-zero risk to storing nuclear waste, especially if you consider how long it remains radioactive.
Would I prefer to live near a nuclear plant or a coal plant? definitely nuclear.
Wind, solar, and renewables are still cleaner than nuclear.
Also burying nuclear waste in what that video says:
With climate change we are seeing extreme weather events and earthquakes more frequently than expected. Who's to say that areas which are currently not active won't become active.
Don't get me wrong, I understand renewables are not going to supply all the power we need right now. I realize that nuclear is the cleaner option (comprlared to fossils fuels).
However, I am still concerned about the nuclear waste. I'm glad they have tight security, and it's good to know the barrels are missile resistant... But nothing is 100% safe. If a terrorist decides to make one of these sites a target, and they have enough money and influence, I'm sure it's possible for them to penetrate security and penetrate those barrels.
Radiation levels are low around the barrels but if contamination occurs that would still be a disaster.