5 ms·

If it is so simple, I wonder why the problem takes so much discussion to be solved...

by giomasce 7y ago

grumpydba 7y ago
Because of the irrational fear of nuclear.
- maweki 7y ago
  The waste is irrationally still radiating for 10.000 years? A reactor might be safe in some sense, but the waste certainly is not.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    I mean, the chemical waste from photovoltaic production is also still poison for 10,000+ years - lots of heavy metals and other nasty shit there. But we don't seem to be quite so afraid of it...
  - grumpydba 7y ago
    What percentage of the waste is radiating for 10000 years? And how radioactive is it? Without facts, precise facts to back it up your statement looks irrational indeed.
  - Twixes 7y ago
    Obviously nuclear waste is dangerous, but it's still safer for the planet than the massive amounts of gasses emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. As opposed to radioactive casks, these gasses cannot be contained deep, deep under ground forever, they can only be released to change our environment in ways neither we nor the nature are prepared to deal with.
  - cynusx 7y ago
    I'd rather manage nuclear waste in a remote site for 10000 years than needing to build up a permanent desalination effort to keep mankind supplied with drinkable water. Don't forget that there are already nuclear waste sites that are managed by the government. It's just a small operational cost for today's governments. There doesn't seem to be a believe that governments will be around for 10000 years to keep this managed securely. But honestly, if society deteriorates to the point it can no longer organize a government, a few highly radioactive spots on earth are not going to be a huge deal. Nuclear waste facilities also have nice economies of scale in the sense that a single site's incremental cost of storing an additional ton of nuclear waste is negligible. So unlike global warming, you're not saddling the future generations up with a massive bill.
Mirioron 7y ago
Because there's little reason to solve it right now. The amount of waste is low enough and technology advances so quickly that we're better off putting this decision off. There's a good chance that some of the waste could be used as fuel itself in the future. There's also a good chance that a century from now, we can build a much better permanent storage facility than right now.
roenxi 7y ago
That is actually the hint it isn't a problem. It is being treated as though it isn't a problem and that is working. If it were actually a problem, someone would have to do something about it. The volumes are so small they can simply be stored in an ad-hoc matter. It is a mystery why people get so fixated on the waste. It is very hard to articulate a problem apart from the fact that it goes away eventually (unlike most waste which sits there pretty much forever). We produce a lot of dangerous substances; nuclear waste isn't the worst of them.

If it is so simple, I wonder why the problem takes so much discussion to be solved...

grumpydba 7y ago

Because of the irrational fear of nuclear.

maweki 7y ago
The waste is irrationally still radiating for 10.000 years? A reactor might be safe in some sense, but the waste certainly is not.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  I mean, the chemical waste from photovoltaic production is also still poison for 10,000+ years - lots of heavy metals and other nasty shit there. But we don't seem to be quite so afraid of it...
- grumpydba 7y ago
  What percentage of the waste is radiating for 10000 years? And how radioactive is it? Without facts, precise facts to back it up your statement looks irrational indeed.
- Twixes 7y ago
  Obviously nuclear waste is dangerous, but it's still safer for the planet than the massive amounts of gasses emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. As opposed to radioactive casks, these gasses cannot be contained deep, deep under ground forever, they can only be released to change our environment in ways neither we nor the nature are prepared to deal with.
- cynusx 7y ago
  I'd rather manage nuclear waste in a remote site for 10000 years than needing to build up a permanent desalination effort to keep mankind supplied with drinkable water. Don't forget that there are already nuclear waste sites that are managed by the government. It's just a small operational cost for today's governments. There doesn't seem to be a believe that governments will be around for 10000 years to keep this managed securely. But honestly, if society deteriorates to the point it can no longer organize a government, a few highly radioactive spots on earth are not going to be a huge deal. Nuclear waste facilities also have nice economies of scale in the sense that a single site's incremental cost of storing an additional ton of nuclear waste is negligible. So unlike global warming, you're not saddling the future generations up with a massive bill.

Mirioron 7y ago

Because there's little reason to solve it right now. The amount of waste is low enough and technology advances so quickly that we're better off putting this decision off. There's a good chance that some of the waste could be used as fuel itself in the future. There's also a good chance that a century from now, we can build a much better permanent storage facility than right now.

roenxi 7y ago

That is actually the hint it isn't a problem. It is being treated as though it isn't a problem and that is working. If it were actually a problem, someone would have to do something about it. The volumes are so small they can simply be stored in an ad-hoc matter. It is a mystery why people get so fixated on the waste. It is very hard to articulate a problem apart from the fact that it goes away eventually (unlike most waste which sits there pretty much forever). We produce a lot of dangerous substances; nuclear waste isn't the worst of them.