Fantastic news! so many people are so afraid of the word “nuclear”, and don’t understand how large of a volume the ocean is. the lethal dose of Fentanyl is like the size of a grain of rice. Put all of the known legal and illegal volume of fentanyl into the ocean and it would be undetectable.
Too bad the whole nuclear life cycle involves extraction, refinement, transportation, and yes the small slice of the cycle where it’s used on the sub, then removal, and waste management (a misnomer since there still isnt any really in a lot of cases). And that whole long chain isn’t nearly as concise and clear cut, and safe as looking at just the small slice of time spent on the sub.
I think that if the environmental movement emphasized how much radioactive material is released by coal and other fossil fuels, we’d have a lot less public resistance to phasing them out.
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue. “the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism”
In my opinion, they should find a nice, stable continental plate and in the middle of that, drill some relatively small diameter boreholes. Drill them ten or twenty kilometres apart to a depth that exercises our current technology, drop sealed waste into the bottom of said holes, top them off to 200m below the surface with concrete, and then backfill the rest with dirt.
After that, remove all evidence of anything ever being there on the surface.
If you have the technology to drill a hole 3-4km deep then you have also the tech to detect radioactive material.
Small diameter boreholes that kind of distance apart are basically undetectable by geophysical survey with our current technology so nothing in particular would ever be seen.
The quantity of worldwide high level radioactive waste that can’t be reprocessed could easy be disposed of in this manner.
The high tech equivalent of a cat burying their shit. While I like the idea of yeeting stuff into space, this is also beautifully simple.
I remember talks of building places with the use of symbols or other non-linguistic messaging to keep future populations at bay, I think that was in Finland or something.
Nuclear waste is probably the biggest issue, as we have to take care of the storage site.
Newer reactor designs are able to consume nuclear waste and use it as fuel. Look up breeder reactors. If we want to minimize nuclear waste, we need to build more reactors ironically.
I do have some research papers that I will pull up on my machine when home.
I’m also not saying don’t use nuclear. I’m commenting on the fanboi risk dismissive misinformation that they like to peddle in here.
And I appreciate the discourse and meant no offense and wasn’t try to say you were implying anything about the rest of the process. I was just pointing out that it’s one of nuke propaganda favorite methods of misinformation by ignoring the life cycle.
Again, I’ll try and send you some of those papers and articles when I’m home. Thanks for the reply.
They were downvoted for telling a half truth. Technically true, but ignoring the context that makes it a good thing. Sure, it needs to be extracted, refined, and (to be clean) contained. All energy sources need the same, except dirty energy at least doesn’t contain their waste.
If you think it’s whataboutism to ask for information that lets you fairly compare things on an equal basis, I’m not sure there’s anything I can say really.
For people genuinely interested in the nuclear industry, only listening to the cheerleaders and Dunning-Kruger advocates is a bad idea.
Go look at nuclear from extraction of materials, to refining of materials, plant risks and histories of disasters, waste and waste management issues,extraction. (ie There are superfunds sites in Washington state still being cleaned up from WWII bombing materials exteaction.)
Pro nuke shills normally like to just cherry pick a slice of the nuclear energy life cycle to fit confirmation bias and or intentionally do it in bad faith.
Yes Nuclear has a LOT of positive potential, but it’s also got significantly higher risks (many magnitudes larger) as the history of disasters, exteaction, and waste management will show you.
This article like a lot of the comments are just pro nuke propaganda. None of these guys have empirical studies on the propagation rate of contamination through the food web for constant regular radioactive dumping. They don’t have exhaustive studies on all the vectors by which the contaminates enter the food chain. There has not been nearly enough time since they started dumping to make the assertions being made here, and NO–64 fish is not a large enough sample size… and on and on.
What you’re reading here is wishful thinking and either inentional lies, or people who think they know more than they do demonstrating Dunning-Kruger.
They're claiming that some "exteaction" [sic] was done improperly during World War II when getting bomb material, and made a mess, and that that should be factored into the environmental effects of modern nuclear power.
That's a dumb argument.
Also telling people to go look it up, is not stating facts.
Reading comprehension, man, you totally missed the point. Also, the WWII superfunds sites in Washington state were just an example… pick any of the 500+ toxic uranium mines all over and around Navajo land if you prefer. Or any other mines in the US or otherwise.
The actual point of the comment was the disinformation, lies of omission, and ridiculous cheerleaders going on in this thread.
The no tritium found in a tiny sample of fish a little bit after starting to release contaminated water into the ocean presented with a ridiculous implication that it means everything is fine and there’s nothing to worry about. Which you can see is what all the little fanbois here picked up and ran with… even though they’re wrong for reasons I’ve already stated.
I tell people to look it up because it’s not hard to find information, and nobody wants to just trust someone (read me) on the internet.
Honestly, if you need to be spoonfed links and papers chances are you’re just looking to argue, 8gnore, discount, and not learn.
Here’s an epa article on the 500+ (yes FIVE HUNDRED)mines the EPA been trying to remediate and deal with that were operational and poisoning the Najavo nation as late as 1986. At least half of them haven’t been addressed at all and the ones that have are usually mitigation not solutions.
I live in South Korea and I get really frustrated how so many people(lefties) try to make a big deal out of this to shit on Japan.
Please fucking stop smoking first before you try to talk shit about this. You sound like a complete idiot when you drink and smoke and worry about how filtered water that is probably safer than the seawater now. You’re literally paying to suck on carcinogens and radioactive shit.
Why do you specify lefties? Is there something unique about South Korean politics that make their left-wing reject science as much as everyone else’s right-wing?
Please read. I’m leftist, but part of that is recognizing these issues. Anti-nuclear has largely been a left thing. The right only does it to protect fossil fuels.
People have been far more concerned about the efficacy of the ALPS system at extracting other contaminants than they are about tritium contamination. The ALPS system is unproven and the wastewater they’re releasing would be pretty toxic as far as other radioactive isotopes is concerned if the ALPS system isn’t doing it’s job perfectly.
The ocean is 1.335 × 10^21 litres. That number is stupid big. There are 7.5 × 10^18 grains of sand on Earth. If every person in Japan flushed a litre of the reactor water down their toilet, it would be diluted to nothing in no time at all.
Uh, so how’s that “limit warming to 1.5°C” target coming along?
Global average temperatures from January to September were 1.4 C higher than 1850-1900, almost breaching the 1.5 C warming goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement, C3S reported.
That threshold is seen as essential to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.
Don’t worry, humanity is reaping massive profits. Well, actually, a tiny little group is reaping the benefits before dying and leaving all future generations with a burning hellscape, but THINK OF ALL THE MONEY THEY ARE MAKING NOW!
The DPP’s policy here seems completely antithetical to the KMT’s and it honestly seems like the DPP is more interested in poking the hornet’s nest than taking action to actually maintain independence. The CPC’s primary policy goal in Taiwan in the past hasn’t been to reintegrate (despite all the posturing), but to make sure that the two China’s are more or less aligned internationally. Essentially, China is to the Taiwan like the US is to Canada or Russia is to Kazakhstan: theoretically independent, but incredibly co-dependent. They don’t want a Cuba on their doorstep, but they’re unwilling to pursue more drastic actions because it’s basically impossible nowadays to portray Taiwan as an “outsider” and an enemy to the domestic population.
The KMT’s position respected this in many ways and opted for closer trade ties under the implicit agreement that Taiwan’s sovereignty wouldn’t be militarily infringed and no one needed to talk about what the actual definition of Taiwanese independence was. The DPP has been actively harming trade with China and aligning with the US, which has broken the status quo established by the KMT… which seems far more congruent with US interests than Taiwanese ones.
I suppose this shouldn’t be surprising given how much US funding has poured into the DPP, but I’m still disappointed. It’s a bilateral escalation of tensions in a region already fraught with tensions.
japantimes.co.jp
Oldest