6 ms·

It's not. The time frame we are talking about invalidates the "safety" because the earth's crust moves and warps, which allows water to access that sort of sto

It's not. The time frame we are talking about invalidates the "safety" because the earth's crust moves and warps, which allows water to access that sort of storage

protocolture 3mo ago
Why dont you suggest what "safe" looks like, and we can discuss your understanding of safety. Its clear to me that the issue is your standards and not actual waste disposal.
- awesome_dude 3mo ago
  My understanding is that this material remains toxic to life for thousands, to tens of thousands of years. Safe means that it's stored such that there's no harm to the environment for that lifetime. In all "bury it" scenarios, the place where the waste is buried will be subject to change resulting in water, air, able to interact with that waste when normal tectonic and erosion processes do their thing.
  - anonymous_user9 3mo ago
    Tectonic and erosion processes take place over millions of years, so they aren't an issue for waste that's only dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
  - protocolture 3mo ago
    I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement. How do you think spent uranium interacts with the environment? There's an estimated 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater. Naturally occurring. I honestly think we missed a trick when we outlawed dumping in the ocean, there's basically no way for human generated nuclear waste to even move the needle on ocean sources. Lets say I take you completely at face value. Every notion of yours comes to pass. We cask it, and leave it in an underground vault. 9999 years later, a cask fails. Whats the issue? Are you using that vault as a busy thoroughfare? Its still in a big hole in the ground. Maybe theres an earthquake? And the vault shears a little. What is the radiation now doing in your mind that makes it dangerous? TBH we shouldnt leave signs warning people to stay away, we should leave a concrete recipe behind on all the signage. There's life thriving in Pripyat just past the big concrete dome. There's a war going on there.
    - roenxi 3mo ago
      > I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement. The problem you're running in to is most likely that you asked someone to define a subjective measure. What you then bump into with the anti-nuclear crowd is safety has one standard for most things and then a different, inconsistent standard when "nuclear" gets mentioned. So a level of harm (or cost/benefit to be more precise) that would be fine for say, lead poisoning or car safety would be a shut-down-the-industry event if it involved nuclear material. And there isn't really a follow up at that point because there is a definitional tautology where, because it involves nuclear material, nuclear material can't be safe. The problem with that is obvious if you want people to have access to clean-cheap-safe power, but it is logically valid and there isn't really a socially acceptably way to have a go at someone for having inconsistent standards if they are happy to own it. And the argument just got derailed away from the actual issues. The more argumentatively correct line is to ask what level of harm is acceptable for nuclear, get told "zero", then point out that this is a standard that isn't applied to anything else in power generation and that our standards of harm from nuclear power should be consistent with everything else. The argument then isn't over a definition but why they think it is acceptable to have an unreasonable and inconsistent standard (which is the real issue).
      - awesome_dude 3mo ago
        I love how the pro nuclear crowd deals in misinformation to denigrate anyone that dares not agree with them. They asked for my standard - despite it being a tactic to try and throw the thread, they got their reply and then complained. You decided a pile on was appropriate with some wild theories that only live in your imagination.
        protocolture 3mo ago
        >they got their reply and then complained. I did complain, and I tried to help frame things up for you a bit.
        LearnYouALisp 3mo ago
  - leonidasrup 3mo ago
    You would be surprised how much toxic industrial waste is been currently stored in deep geological repositories. For example Herfa-Neurode underground repository contains (as of 2025): https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/ https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-man... 690,000 tons of waste containing dioxins and furans , 220,000 tons of waste containing mercury, 127,000 tons of waste containing cyanide, and 83,000 tons of toxic waste containing arsenic. Each year additional waste is added and it will be toxic forever. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode
    - awesome_dude 3mo ago
      I am not surprised - I am, however, surprised how little people pay attention to the risks involved with the practice.
  - troupo 3mo ago
    0.2% of waste is toxic for thousands of years. Page 15: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/2020-03/Andra-MAJ_Essentiels_2020_UK.pdf https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/202...
    - westurner 3mo ago
      > $100 [billiards] ball of Thorium = 100 years of energy. ... A newer video: > "THORIUM: World's CHEAPEST Energy!" https://youtube.com/watch?v=U434Sy9BGf8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=U434Sy9BGf8 re: Copenhagen Atomics' waste burner designs Also, there's He3 for Fusion in Natural Gas and ocean water.
  - Manuel_D 3mo ago
    Uranium is a heavy metal, like lead. It always was, and will be toxic. Naturally occurring uranium is toxic, even without any enrichment.
zdragnar 3mo ago
The Earth's crust will take far longer to move yucca than the nuclear waste will be a problem. That's the whole reason that site was chosen. Even Yellowstone isn't set to blow on that time scale.
Manuel_D 3mo ago
The movement of tectonic plates is something that takes millions, not thousands, of years. Not to mention Yucca Mountain is far from the edge of any tectonic plate.

It's not. The time frame we are talking about invalidates the "safety" because the earth's crust moves and warps, which allows water to access that sort of storage

protocolture 3mo ago

Why dont you suggest what "safe" looks like, and we can discuss your understanding of safety. Its clear to me that the issue is your standards and not actual waste disposal.

awesome_dude 3mo ago
My understanding is that this material remains toxic to life for thousands, to tens of thousands of years. Safe means that it's stored such that there's no harm to the environment for that lifetime. In all "bury it" scenarios, the place where the waste is buried will be subject to change resulting in water, air, able to interact with that waste when normal tectonic and erosion processes do their thing.
- anonymous_user9 3mo ago
  Tectonic and erosion processes take place over millions of years, so they aren't an issue for waste that's only dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
- protocolture 3mo ago
  I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement. How do you think spent uranium interacts with the environment? There's an estimated 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater. Naturally occurring. I honestly think we missed a trick when we outlawed dumping in the ocean, there's basically no way for human generated nuclear waste to even move the needle on ocean sources. Lets say I take you completely at face value. Every notion of yours comes to pass. We cask it, and leave it in an underground vault. 9999 years later, a cask fails. Whats the issue? Are you using that vault as a busy thoroughfare? Its still in a big hole in the ground. Maybe theres an earthquake? And the vault shears a little. What is the radiation now doing in your mind that makes it dangerous? TBH we shouldnt leave signs warning people to stay away, we should leave a concrete recipe behind on all the signage. There's life thriving in Pripyat just past the big concrete dome. There's a war going on there.
  - roenxi 3mo ago
    > I keep coming back to this to reply but I cant really figure out how to tackle it. Theres so much of a particular view of the world in each statement. The problem you're running in to is most likely that you asked someone to define a subjective measure. What you then bump into with the anti-nuclear crowd is safety has one standard for most things and then a different, inconsistent standard when "nuclear" gets mentioned. So a level of harm (or cost/benefit to be more precise) that would be fine for say, lead poisoning or car safety would be a shut-down-the-industry event if it involved nuclear material. And there isn't really a follow up at that point because there is a definitional tautology where, because it involves nuclear material, nuclear material can't be safe. The problem with that is obvious if you want people to have access to clean-cheap-safe power, but it is logically valid and there isn't really a socially acceptably way to have a go at someone for having inconsistent standards if they are happy to own it. And the argument just got derailed away from the actual issues. The more argumentatively correct line is to ask what level of harm is acceptable for nuclear, get told "zero", then point out that this is a standard that isn't applied to anything else in power generation and that our standards of harm from nuclear power should be consistent with everything else. The argument then isn't over a definition but why they think it is acceptable to have an unreasonable and inconsistent standard (which is the real issue).
    - awesome_dude 3mo ago
      I love how the pro nuclear crowd deals in misinformation to denigrate anyone that dares not agree with them. They asked for my standard - despite it being a tactic to try and throw the thread, they got their reply and then complained. You decided a pile on was appropriate with some wild theories that only live in your imagination.
      - protocolture 3mo ago
        >they got their reply and then complained. I did complain, and I tried to help frame things up for you a bit.
      - LearnYouALisp 3mo ago
- leonidasrup 3mo ago
  You would be surprised how much toxic industrial waste is been currently stored in deep geological repositories. For example Herfa-Neurode underground repository contains (as of 2025): https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/ https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-man... 690,000 tons of waste containing dioxins and furans , 220,000 tons of waste containing mercury, 127,000 tons of waste containing cyanide, and 83,000 tons of toxic waste containing arsenic. Each year additional waste is added and it will be toxic forever. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode
  - awesome_dude 3mo ago
    I am not surprised - I am, however, surprised how little people pay attention to the risks involved with the practice.
- troupo 3mo ago
  0.2% of waste is toxic for thousands of years. Page 15: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/2020-03/Andra-MAJ_Essentiels_2020_UK.pdf https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/202...
  - westurner 3mo ago
    > $100 [billiards] ball of Thorium = 100 years of energy. ... A newer video: > "THORIUM: World's CHEAPEST Energy!" https://youtube.com/watch?v=U434Sy9BGf8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=U434Sy9BGf8 re: Copenhagen Atomics' waste burner designs Also, there's He3 for Fusion in Natural Gas and ocean water.
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  Uranium is a heavy metal, like lead. It always was, and will be toxic. Naturally occurring uranium is toxic, even without any enrichment.

zdragnar 3mo ago

The Earth's crust will take far longer to move yucca than the nuclear waste will be a problem. That's the whole reason that site was chosen. Even Yellowstone isn't set to blow on that time scale.

Manuel_D 3mo ago

The movement of tectonic plates is something that takes millions, not thousands, of years. Not to mention Yucca Mountain is far from the edge of any tectonic plate.