5 ms·

Trusting startups to dispose of it properly if they go bankrupt seems like an absolute disaster waiting to happen. Netflix has/had an interesting series "radioa

Trusting startups to dispose of it properly if they go bankrupt seems like an absolute disaster waiting to happen. Netflix has/had an interesting series "radioactive emergency" based on real events that seems to be a fairly plausible outcome. The "Goiânia accident in Brazil occurred on September 13, 1987".

PearlRiver 4mo ago
Practically every time a corporation ends up polluting the environment the government ends up paying for it.
- helpfulfrond 4mo ago
  Which seems like a good reason not to hand out a bunch of nuclear material...
EA-3167 4mo ago
The US is significantly more developed and less locally corrupt than Brazil, never mind Brazil in the 1980s.
- helpfulfrond 4mo ago
  I still don't trust failing startups to handle radioactive waste properly.
  - EA-3167 4mo ago
    Trust isn’t a factor, regulations and DOE control are. You also seem to be really overestimating the amount of fissile material any one facility will have at any given time.
    - croes 4mo ago
      > regulations and DOE control are That’s still trust. DOGE wasn’t helpful keeping trust in the capabilities of government agencies to enforce regulations
      - EA-3167 4mo ago
        DOGE was a joke, the DOE is not and has a proven track record of controlling nuclear material in far more challenging scenarios than some startups with enough diluted PU for a reactor. Those risks are frankly trivial compared to the ones related to pollution and climate change people are willing to endure because it doesn't tickle their monkey brain with the "nuclear" word.
        bigbadfeline 4mo ago
        > DOE is not and has a proven track record of controlling nuclear material in far more challenging scenarios than some startups with enough diluted PU for a reactor. Really? In the case of the Apollo affair, also known as NUMEC affair, the DOE lost enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs. NUMEC wasn't a big company. Your statement is backwards. The larger the organization using the material is, the easier it is to control its use. Multiple cases of "some startups" are the opposite of that and a lot harder to control. > enough diluted PU for a reactor Diluted PU is chemically separable, no need for fancy centrifuges, "some startup" can easily extract weapons grade material and it doesn't take much to cause irreparable harm to the US. > Those risks are frankly trivial compared to the ones related to pollution and climate change people are willing to endure because it doesn't tickle their monkey brain with the "nuclear" word. A rogue nuke can do a lot more damage than pollution, especially in the current political climate. You severely underestimate the difficulties of safeguarding nuclear materials too. Pollution and climate change are several orders of magnitude less risky than willy-nilly distribution of plutonium. And of course, "monkey brain" is a cheap manipulation attempt.
        EA-3167 4mo ago
        In order: In 1965. So much has changed since, especially when it comes to accountability and tracking of nuclear material and waste. Yes in theory, no in practice the attempt to do so would probably require a state sponsor. Now you have US companies transferring PU to a foreign power to turn into weapons grade? For what? The pleasure of ending up in ADX Florence until they die? It really can't, over a million people die annually from air pollution alone, never mind the billions expected to perish as a result of downstream effects of climate change. Frankly a nuke or two is nothing by comparison, even if this story had anything to do with nuclear weapons... ...WHICH IT DOES NOT.

PearlRiver 4mo ago

Practically every time a corporation ends up polluting the environment the government ends up paying for it.

helpfulfrond 4mo ago
Which seems like a good reason not to hand out a bunch of nuclear material...

EA-3167 4mo ago

The US is significantly more developed and less locally corrupt than Brazil, never mind Brazil in the 1980s.

helpfulfrond 4mo ago
I still don't trust failing startups to handle radioactive waste properly.
- EA-3167 4mo ago
  Trust isn’t a factor, regulations and DOE control are. You also seem to be really overestimating the amount of fissile material any one facility will have at any given time.
  - croes 4mo ago
    > regulations and DOE control are That’s still trust. DOGE wasn’t helpful keeping trust in the capabilities of government agencies to enforce regulations
    - EA-3167 4mo ago
      DOGE was a joke, the DOE is not and has a proven track record of controlling nuclear material in far more challenging scenarios than some startups with enough diluted PU for a reactor. Those risks are frankly trivial compared to the ones related to pollution and climate change people are willing to endure because it doesn't tickle their monkey brain with the "nuclear" word.
      - bigbadfeline 4mo ago
        > DOE is not and has a proven track record of controlling nuclear material in far more challenging scenarios than some startups with enough diluted PU for a reactor. Really? In the case of the Apollo affair, also known as NUMEC affair, the DOE lost enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs. NUMEC wasn't a big company. Your statement is backwards. The larger the organization using the material is, the easier it is to control its use. Multiple cases of "some startups" are the opposite of that and a lot harder to control. > enough diluted PU for a reactor Diluted PU is chemically separable, no need for fancy centrifuges, "some startup" can easily extract weapons grade material and it doesn't take much to cause irreparable harm to the US. > Those risks are frankly trivial compared to the ones related to pollution and climate change people are willing to endure because it doesn't tickle their monkey brain with the "nuclear" word. A rogue nuke can do a lot more damage than pollution, especially in the current political climate. You severely underestimate the difficulties of safeguarding nuclear materials too. Pollution and climate change are several orders of magnitude less risky than willy-nilly distribution of plutonium. And of course, "monkey brain" is a cheap manipulation attempt.
        EA-3167 4mo ago
        In order: In 1965. So much has changed since, especially when it comes to accountability and tracking of nuclear material and waste. Yes in theory, no in practice the attempt to do so would probably require a state sponsor. Now you have US companies transferring PU to a foreign power to turn into weapons grade? For what? The pleasure of ending up in ADX Florence until they die? It really can't, over a million people die annually from air pollution alone, never mind the billions expected to perish as a result of downstream effects of climate change. Frankly a nuke or two is nothing by comparison, even if this story had anything to do with nuclear weapons... ...WHICH IT DOES NOT.