(Thread IKs:
Stereotype)
|
TehSaurus posted:American scandal did a series of episodes about three mile island that pretty much convinced me that humans might indeed not be capable of managing something with the combination of complexity and dramatic failure potential as nuclear power. what is the actual deal with nuclear waste because some goon either here or in the P v I thread said you could just dump that poo poo in the ocean and yeah it wouldn't be "good," but it would actually be more chemically toxic than radioactively dangerous because water would just absorb the radical gamma neutron hydrogens. However, according to my advanced knowledge of biology this is one of the main ways to get rampaging godzillas, possibly like the #2 method. This is obviously not the same level as an actual reactor fuckup situation, but maybe the whole "not a place of honor" bullshit is actually completely... bullshit, even if you disregard all the stuff about reactors being designed more for the production of weapons material and less for power efficiency. Is "throw it in the ocean" an actual, safe, viable, long term strat for dealing with radioactive waste? Would encasing it in something and shoving it off the barge be an option or is it yet another supreme rear end in a top hat maneuver by humans? -- Radioactivity as the invisible killer is an interesting concept across time, just by itself. Used to have those radon water jugs and poo poo. Mysterious and futuristic X rays. Then the bombs fell and everyone was like "UUUUUHHHHH fuuuuuck." And the whole time we were cooking ourselves with other invisible killers and not giving a poo poo.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
simply put tropical plants in those regions i'm sure it'll be fine
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
What we need is some good ol safe and clean coal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:11
|
|
|
the problem with nuclear is not the technology or even the waste. the problem is we as a species/society/economic-system are incapable of managing 50+ year risk curves. our model of investing and financing and insuring simply breaks at that scale. its not even a nuclear thing, we can't handle bridges or tunnels either. our water infrastructure, our train networks, our sewage systems, all completely disintegrating as they make it past our first 50 year boom. we are simply riding out the risk curves on everything until the disaster point. nuclear's safety record really only looks as good as it does because its like looking at health insurance metrics for people under 40. just because some scientists and engineers are capable of doing X, doesn't mean society is capable of handling lots of X. this is a brain-breaking concept to many engineers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
it's the economic system. There's houses and in some cases functional infrastructure that's old as piss and still actually works and is literally fine and actually good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:what is the actual deal with nuclear waste because some goon either here or in the P v I thread said you could just dump that poo poo in the ocean and yeah it wouldn't be "good," but it would actually be more chemically toxic than radioactively dangerous because water would just absorb the radical gamma neutron hydrogens. However, according to my advanced knowledge of biology this is one of the main ways to get rampaging godzillas, possibly like the #2 method. America doesn’t do this for reasons
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:it's the economic system. There's houses and in some cases functional infrastructure that's old as piss and still actually works and is literally fine and actually good. houses are mostly incapable of achieving meltdown*, and usually used by less than a million people at a time**. completely different failure-mode/risk-curve. *something about your mom achieving critical mass goes here **unlike... MightyBigMinus has issued a correction as of 16:48 on Feb 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:the problem with nuclear is not the technology or even the waste. the problem is we as a plenty of cultures were capable of this 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
hearing credible reports that the groundhog has killed itself with a gun
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
mags posted:plenty of cultures were capable of this Yeah not buying it. Even if you claim there had to be industry to have the unpredicted nightmare reality of a nuclear meltdown & we didn't have serious industry since like ever... you could have nuke plants more effectively managed than climate change & it's not some intrinsic biotruthsesque aspect of the human species that makes Homer Simpson hit the wrong buttons when he crit fails his daily nuclear engineer check given enough time Also nice av for the argument MBM lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:Yeah not buying it. Even if you claim there had to be industry to have the unpredicted nightmare reality of a nuclear meltdown & we didn't have serious industry since like ever... you could have nuke plants more effectively managed than climate change & it's not some intrinsic biotruthsesque aspect of the human species that makes Homer Simpson hit the wrong buttons when he crit fails his daily nuclear engineer check given enough time I’m gonna keep following your posting arc as I have a keen interest in the development of green hitlers
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
The world where we could have fully safe nuclear is the world where we wouldn't have to worry about climate change and wouldn't have to work more than like 1 day a week and all that poo poo, because of one reason: It would be the world where capital lost
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
yeah it’s the combination of planning horizon and disaster potential that really makes nuclear unique. Again I think we should be trying anyway, but those are the issues I’d be trying to address, by [redacted]
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
every nuke plant being decommissioned by melting down would be less hazardous to human health than running a coal plant or fracking operation and then spraying down the highways with radioactive fracking juices. theres nothing worse out there than fossil fuel energy lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
boy i sure am sick of hearing about what a terror nuclear waste must/would be, it's just so embedded in the psyche of seemingly every westerner, just brain-steeped in 'scary atomzz!' from birthWakko posted:every nuke plant being decommissioned by melting down would be less hazardous to human health than running a coal plant or fracking operation and then spraying down the highways with radioactive fracking juices. theres nothing worse out there than fossil fuel energy lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
again, the tech got halted, so worrying about 'current' rx designs in the far future is akin to hand-wringing about everyone on the road being in cars w/o seatbelts and safety glass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
like even if you discarded the fly ash and the fracking brine, capitalism's drive to develop mega-cancer fuel additives at an increasing rate is all you need to know about what the future holds for fossil fuel health impacts as EROI declines
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
i guess in celebration of eternal groundshog day i should mention again that waste could be destroyed, rather than stored but the greens put a stop to that. thanks jimmy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
silly tankies when demand for a functional biosphere is high enough the market solutions will follow: simple as
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:American scandal did a series of episodes about three mile island that pretty much convinced me that humans might indeed not be capable of managing something with the combination of complexity and dramatic failure potential as nuclear power. Ridiculous. It was a one time thing and therefore doesn't count. What about (every other nuclear disaster), which were also one offs and also doesn't count To your second point, how about putting the spent fuel pool above the reactor? MightyBigMinus posted:just because some scientists and engineers are capable of doing X, doesn't mean society is capable of handling lots of X. this is a brain-breaking concept to many engineers. It's funny because you can almost instantly visualize it with flying cars
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:nuclear's safety record really only looks as good as it does because its like looking at health insurance metrics for people under 40. You don't think coal causes difficult to measure health effects over a lifetime?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Nobody gives a poo poo about slow, systemic poisoning. It's all about instantaneous megadoses of grays and radioactive spider bites
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
The USA has 90 something nuclear power plants making like 20% of its total electricity and yet somehow people are still living into their 80s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Dokapon Findom posted:Nobody gives a poo poo about slow, systemic poisoning. It's all about instantaneous megadoses of grays and radioactive spider bites A Deepwater Horizon here, and Exxon Valdez there, sprinkle some frack juice on the plains that we blew out of the mountain, unearth all the gases sequestered in our crust. The only thing we got going for us is that my generation is unleaded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
I just checked my bedroom and it's full of atoms!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I just checked my bedroom and it's full of atoms! mine is full of chemicals!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
I got microplastics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Dokapon Findom posted:It's funny because you can almost instantly visualize it with flying cars Salt Fish posted:You don't think coal causes difficult to measure health effects over a lifetime? i love this type of internet argument. step 1: either fail to comprehend or willfully misread what someone said, step 2: reply with "so you..." and make something up they didn't say to fill in the blank. MightyBigMinus has issued a correction as of 19:06 on Feb 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
Wow in some contexts and amounts these are good and some insanely chronically bad or instantly fatal huh  *Slams approved stamp and pockets money*
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
I simultaneously believe that fossil fuels will lead to the inevitable extinction of the human race but also that nuclear power is way too dangerous to use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
again with the ironic-bank-shot made-up-poo poo posting it must be exhausting to have to listen to those voices in your head all day
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
oh good we're at the owning each other part of the discussion
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:again with the ironic-bank-shot made-up-poo poo posting In the last 1 day I've used: A bridge built more than 50 years ago Sewage system built more than 50 years ago Nuclear power from a plant built more than 50 years ago So I get it that everything sucks, but it is clearly possible to build things that last 50 years because they're all over the place. The US has multiple reactors running today that came online in 1970.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
my dishwasher is only 4 years old and it has broken twice already
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
Ironically the old era durable goods were often considered to be durable by requirement, & could often be repaired. however now you're not allowed to update the firmware on your bicycle derailleur yourself
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:In the last 1 day I've used: this is a *perfect* example because your anecdotal experience of three 50+ year old assets seemed fine, you don't think its a problem. meanwhile every inspection report and engineering study is, like every climate report and biology report, screaming out in panic. we suck at this kind of risk horizon because people have exactly the opinion you just posted you are perfectly normal and we are completely hosed
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
guy in fukushima in february of 2011: hey did you see this report about how the engineering of the plant is insufficient for the updated earthquake risk models and they just decided not to fix it? guy he's talking to: ahh its been fine my entire life! check it out the light switch is working fine! <flip><flip>
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
widespread nuclear power will never happen because the old men in charge are afraid of the inevitable marxist atomic supermen
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Me, the expert at looking 50 years into the future: "Hm.. better keep using fossil fuels."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Aww a nuclear argument in the climate thread, how quaint!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 19:57
|
|
