this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
31 points (91.9% liked)

World News

38578 readers
2116 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Nuclear waste" sounds super scary, but most of it are things like tools and clothing, that have comparatively tiny amount of radioactivity. Sure it still needs to be stored properly, very little high level waste is actually generated.

You know what else is catastrophic? Fossil fuels and the impact they have on the climate. I'm not arguing that we should put all our eggs in one basket, but getting started and doing something to move away from the BS that is coal, gas, and oil is really something we should've prioritised fifty years ago. Instead they have us arguing whether we should go with hydroelectric, or put up with "ugly windmills" or "solar farms" or "dangerous nuclear plants."

It's all bullshit. Our world is literally on fire and no one seems to actually give a fuck. We have fantastic tools that could've halted the progress had we used them in time, but fifty years later we're still arguing about this.

At this point I honestly hope we do burn. This is a filter mankind does not deserve to pass. We're too evil to survive.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yea both are horrible. But we can get off fossil fuels and walk away. We can't with nuclear. It'll always be with us and doesn't solve that we need fossil fuel for other things.

Jets and ships are still going to need fossil fuels.

Which is why I think the best thing we could be doing right now is focusing on improving how energy is store. With the right advancement we could solve a lot of these problems with the right battery.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Mercury will always be with us. Arsenic will always be with us. PFAS will always be with us. Natural radiation will always be with us. Fortunately, nuclear waste is easily detectable, the regulations around it are much stronger, the amount of HLW is miniscule and the storage processes are incredibly advanced

Moreover, most Nuclear waste won't always be with us. A lot of fission prodcuts have half lives in the decades or centuries

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jets and ships can be nuclear powered. It's just not a very good idea for jets at least.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but doesn't that just increase the nuclear waste storage issue if we turn all these vehicles nuclear powered

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not hugely. Actual nuclear waste, not just mildly radioactive uniforms and similar material, is extremely small and compact for the amount of energy generated.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I would say though how much nuclear waste would be acceptable in an aquifer to be an issue. Its great that in relation to the energy produced, its small. But can that small amount still pose a catastrophic risk or not