Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?

[anorlunda]

@girts, you're doubling down on anti-corporate bias.

You neglect the social benefit of affordable and plentiful power. It does not come without risk, but the lowest possible risk means no affordable power at all and that harms society much more than any accident. That applies not just to power, but to all human enterprise.

You also seem ignorant of the regulated monopoly business model used for utilities in many countries for many years. The regulated monopoly is guaranteed a percent of cost (and investment) as profit. So the more things cost, the more profit. So if your personal bias visualizes corporations as greedy, then you should expect the utilities to choose the safer and more costly choices.

 

[OCR]

...but if they were aware of it and got overruled, well there you have your culprit.

STS-51-L...

NASA managers also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning, and failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors.

What we had over there was a failure to communicate.

...

Also, the "failure to communicate" aspect might have involved some go fever... ?

 

[girts]

Well Jim I doubt we can find the original information as to why they choose such a low elevation and such a low seawall, atleast it won't be easy, I believe most of the engineers are dead by now or either of old age since the plant was built in the late 60's and I believe an average nuclear power plant engineer is atleast 35 years of age or older.I must say I doubt if not altogether refuse to believe in the fact that engineers building a nuclear power plant did not know of a record high tsunami devastating the very site on which they are building just some 65 years prior, in that timescale I believe most of their fathers were alive that witnessed the tsunami in 1896.
Also at least where I live such big events are taught in schools history class.
I just find it impossible for them to not know about the last 100 years of tsunamis in Japan , given it's a country on an island sitting right next and on top of a seismic fault which also happens to be right next to the worlds largest water reservoir (the pacific ocean)

the thing I would believe and logically think was the real reason as in many other cases around the world is that they knew the dangers (otherwise they had to be blind) but they likely assumed that nothing of the sort would happen at their place , one of the reasons I read is that the 1896 tsunami happen more up north.I found an article that somewhat backs up my claims and gives them some credibility.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ly-was-a-hill-safe-from-tsunami/#.WS2RedwlEdU

In the article few key points are given, first of all the other nuclear plant affected by the tsunami was sitting on a higher elevation and hence was fine, also it turns out that the backup diesels were underground so to speak next to the turbine generators, if this is not true please say otherwise.
Atleast they could have located the backup diesels further away from the plant, I can understand the wish to build the plant lower so that feedwater pumps can be operated at lower cost etc but at least locate the backups further up shore on higher ground, given that they will be your last resort if something happens.

Also geologists did warm TEPCO of the dangers such a plant could face being built so close to the sea and also so low. The seawall was about 5.7 meters above sea level although tsunamis that struck the cost of Japan since the plant becam operation in 1983 and 1993 respectively measured wave height of about 14m and 31m respectively which again if happened at or near the Fukushima coastline would have taken out the plant easily.@anorlunda Well I think you are taking my comments to harshly or my position as such, sure I understand everybody who does something especially if its something big also wants to see his own profit and sure we don't need to manufacture every car with a bulletproof window just because there are crazy gunmen in the world. I understand your point. The thing is I believe (haven't checked the data for now) that most of the PWR and BWR reactors in Europe and US for example are located on fairly "safe ground" so their maximum safety features can be less dramatic and so they won't and don't drive up the cost per KWH enormously. But if you happen to live or want to live in places that are known for their natural disasters and/or other dangers I'd say you must also be willing to spend more money on living there or work harder. It's like living in California and complaining that its hot, well that's what you get but you might as well live in Alaska, the same reasoning I would apply for Japanese coastline nuke plants, sure nuclear is a clean and rather safe energy but if you want to make it happen in a place that gets washed away literally once in a while then how about spending some extra buck to make it worthwhile and safe, I believe some not so complicated or overly expensive changes might have made the plant safe enough to withstand this tsunami.
After all sure we can talk about monopolies and profits but what's the profit if your nuke plant goes meltdown? I guess the cleanup costs + the unusable land and resettlement costs will outweigh the profits made by the Fukushima plant during its operation and if so that is a bad business model, they might have invested more but avoided problems and so would have ended their plant license term with a surplus instead of having to close it prematurely and with a large deficit in legal lawsuits and other possible problems.
Not to mention that such approach or mismanagement of nuclear power casts a bad look and dark shadow on the rest of nuclear energy worldwide, so it has longterm effects far beyond contamination and cleanup costs.

All I'm saying is those who want to make great advances in complicated geological places also need to be ready to put in great effort to make that reality sustainable. More specifically I think they should have either relocated the backup diesels and/or built a much more robust and higher seawall, probably both and that could have saved the plant, even if some water got over the seawall t would have been far less and the diesels continuing running would have also probably helped much. Instead the diesels were flooded and the seawall as small as it was collapsed altogether

 

[jim hardy]

I must say I doubt if not altogether refuse to believe in the fact that engineers building a nuclear power plant did not know of a record high tsunami devastating the very site on which they are building just some 65 years prior, in that timescale I believe most of their fathers were alive that witnessed the tsunami in 1896.
Also at least where I live such big events are taught in schools history class.
I just find it impossible for them to not know about the last 100 years of tsunamis in Japan , given it's a country on an island sitting right next and on top of a seismic fault which also happens to be right next to the worlds largest water reservoir (the pacific ocean)

Quite a good point.

The GE engineers probably in California may have been unaware
but local lore should have alerted somebody.
OCR's "Go Fever "Syndrome might have played a role. It was after all an early plant . I well remember the excitement of our 1972 startup

the backup diesels were underground so to speak next to the turbine generators, if this is not true please say otherwise.

Diesels are massive.
One likes to have massive things like turbines and diesels near the ground floor lest an earthquake toss them about as the building flexes, like cracking a whip.

 

[jim hardy]

The seawall was about 5.7 meters above sea level although tsunamis that struck the cost of Japan since the plant becam operation in 1983 and 1993 respectively measured wave height of about 14m and 31m respectively

I looked them up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sea_of_Japan_earthquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Hokkaidō_earthquake
Both of those were in Sea of Japan, opposite side of the island.
One would have to take what the geologists said about risk on the Pacific side.

Only huge one i was aware of on the Pacific side was a thousand years ago. Still, that's recent enough it ought to be in PRA.
And that's the one i keep beating the drum about. Wasn't record of it only discovered in 1990's ?

Law of Delay worked its mischief...

 

[girts]

Well if I were to build those plants a tsunami being on the opposite side of the island isn't much of a relief. Let's not forget that Japan has seismi faults running down its length on both sides of the island those lines even cross the island at two poinpts. Expecting a tsunami at that place is a safe bet i would say And correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge 1960's geology and science in general was advanced enough to predict that in such a place a large tsunami is a given posibility say once in a 100 years whic is soon enough for any large scale infrastructure object to take into account

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a good understanding of the situation regarding TEPCO and the Japanese regulator NISA as it concerns the accident at Fukushima.
http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361

Steps that could have prevented a major accident in the event that the plant was inundated by a massive tsunami, such as the one that struck the plant in March 2011, include:

•Protecting emergency power supplies, including diesel generators and batteries, by moving them to higher ground or by placing them in watertight bunkers;

•Establishing watertight connections between emergency power supplies and key safety systems; and

•Enhancing the protection of seawater pumps (which were used to transfer heat from the plant to the ocean and to cool diesel generators) and/or constructing a backup means to dissipate heat.

NISA lacked independence from both the government agencies responsible for promoting nuclear power and also from industry. In the Japanese nuclear industry, there has been a focus on seismic safety to the exclusion of other possible risks. Bureaucratic and professional stovepiping made nuclear officials unwilling to take advice from experts outside of the field. Those nuclear professionals also may have failed to effectively utilize local knowledge. And, perhaps most importantly, many believed that a severe accident was simply impossible.

In 1974, Congress decides to abolish the AEC. Supporters and critics of nuclear power agree that the promotional and regulatory duties of the AEC should be assigned to different agencies. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; it began operations on January 19, 1975 (during the Ford administration). The AEC was divided into ERDA which became the US DOE and the US NRC.

Some background - https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/history.html

 

[Astronuc]

And correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge 1960's geology and science in general was advanced enough to predict that in such a place a large tsunami is a given possibility say once in a 100 years which is soon enough for any large scale infrastructure object to take into account

Yes, but only some parts of the coastline were protected, while much of the coastline was not protected. For example, the airport in the city of Sendai was flooded, as were many towns and industrial sites. So it was not only the Fukushima NPP that was inadequately protected, but a large portion of the economic centers along the coastline.

I looked them up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sea_of_Japan_earthquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Hokkaidō_earthquake
Both of those were in Sea of Japan, opposite side of the island.
One would have to take what the geologists said about risk on the Pacific side.

Also, there was the 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake, which affected the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant. However, this event did not involve a significant tsunami.

 

[jim hardy]

In the Japanese nuclear industry, there has been a focus on seismic safety to the exclusion of other possible risks.

Parkinson describes that paradigm beautifully - a committee will spend all its time on what it understands.
Earthquake is acceleration and F=MA and that's why you put massive things as close as possible to the ground.
Electrical system is so spread out and interactive it's not amenable to such a simple mental picture...

Bureaucratic and professional stovepiping made nuclear officials unwilling to take advice from experts outside of the field. Those nuclear professionals also may have failed to effectively utilize local knowledge. And, perhaps most importantly, many believed that a severe accident was simply impossible.

Human failings . Narcissm Vanity Hubris ? We could easily digress into mythology, I've long thought Edith Hamilton should be part of MBA curricula.

I've said this before - previous generation of scientific people got our technology up to where it is. Now Management Science has to catch up.
My generation started addressing that toward latter part of our careers , perhaps it'll be our legacy.

old jim

 

[Astronuc]

We could easily digress into mythology, I've long thought Edith Hamilton should be part of MBA curricula.

I think it is rare that she is cited in a business/management textbook.

previous generation of scientific people got our technology up to where it is. Now Management Science has to catch up.

Interestingly, I had a parallel conversation today about the difference between management by scientist/engineers, who know science and technology, as well as business management versus management by business managers, who don't understand science or technology, but only business management.

 

[nikkkom]

40 ??

At 2.4 mm /year , the current rate along US east coast, a meter is 400 years.

Sea level change of 1 meter is not a huge problem.
In Netherlands, postglacial isostatic relaxation currently results in the lowest dry point of the country at 6.76 m below sea level!
I did not read in the news how horribly broken Netherlands is because it had to spend $$$ to build its dikes. Did you?

This is a practical proof that with proper engineering, it is possible to keep rising sea from flooding the land, even with several meters rise.

 

[nikkkom]

If you insist on ascribing blame, look to those historical tsunami reports and why the PRA wasn't revised to include them
. Did they get stalled by passing the buck per "Bureaucratic Buckmastership" chapter in Parkinson's Law of Delay ?
That's what i think.
Did they get reviewed and squashed by somebody wanting to save money?
I cannot believe that, but i could believe it was somebody too insecure to pass bad news upward.

It may be not about some low-level manager being afraid to pass bad news upward. Company's culture eventually determines what kind of low-level managers it has. If people which are honest and not afraid to speak their mind are penalized (fired/not promoted), they eventually leave. Only "yes men" remain. No wonder those wouldn't pass bad news up...

 

[Davy_Crockett]

The trend is expected to become nonlinear in the future, the sea level might rise as much as 2.5 meters until 2100. Here is a report, see table 5 for example. My numbers cover the worst case expected sea level rise.

Less than 0.1% chance seas will rise more than 8.6 feet by 2100 based on current trajectory (report, pp.vi, 21, 29). Keep Probabilistic Risk Assessment ink wet and cask powder dry, and don't discount greater tidal surge (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10585) and especially overland flooding due to ~30% increase atmospheric moisture by that time (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17540863).

I'll second that.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8724580 and click "Sea level Trends"
View attachment 204477

Graph shows data rising above the trend line since 2011. Expect possibility of upwardly revised rate curve with Jason-3 and GRACE data over next few years.

No complacency = no worries. My main concern is political resistance to the expert decisions with regard to removal of waste from flood risk areas. With placement in Yucca Mountain, for example, I understand there would be no risk of radiation exposure to the public while they were enjoying the mountain and the surrounding area. I would like to hear more public education and reassurance in this area of management.

 

[nikkkom]

With placement in Yucca Mountain, for example, I understand there would be no risk of radiation exposure to the public while they were enjoying the mountain and the surrounding area. I would like to hear more public education and reassurance in this area of management.

Anyone knows why just shipping it to French reprocessing plant is not being considered? French have very advanced reprocessing capabilities.

 

[mfb]

There is still waste after the reprocessing, although the amount gets smaller.

 

[jim hardy]

Graph shows data rising above the trend line since 2011. Expect possibility of upwardly revised rate curve with Jason-3 and GRACE data over next few years.

It does that periodically.

But a bit of rise wouldn't surprise me given reports of runoff around Greenland.

Hmmmm it'd be interesting to differentiate this formula

and figure how many tons of water per degree rise should make their way into the atmosphere, ΔP X area of earth?

But i digress. Sorry !

old jim

 

[nikkkom]

There is still waste after the reprocessing, although the amount gets smaller.

I know. But it will be in a neatly packaged non-soluble form (glass inside 5mm wall thickness steel cylinders, welded shut), and definitely no longer usable (U and Pu is removed). Perfect for, say, throwing them down some 9 km deep borehole in a subduction zone...

 

[Hiddencamper]

As far as I know, the hydrogen was outside containment when it ignited. The "outer containment" is a sheet metal building, normally maintained slightly below atmospheric pressure (to allow filtering of any normal leakage from the auxiliary systems). It is not designed for internal pressure. Maybe @Hiddencamper can chime in here with more specifics. The videos are certainly dramatic, but they do not show containment failure due to hydrogen explosion.

There was a lot of discussion about the SPEEDI system (and its problems) in the Fukushima threads.

Late response. Sorry we were in a refuel outage and I've been working a lot.

Bwrs use a secondary containment. It's designed to maintain 1/4" of water column of vacuum, just enough to prevent unmonitored radioactive releases. The secondary containment is typically the reactor building, but sometimes extends to other sections as well. Mark III bwrs have a shell around their primary containment which acts as a secondary containment, and also include the fuel building and select parts of the auxiliary building in their secondary containment envelope. The secondary containment has vacuum drawn by the standby gas treatment system, which uses HEPA and charcoal filters to reduce radioactive effluents, release them at an elevated point to minimize fallout effects near the site and help dilute releases with the jet stream, and ensure releases are monitored so that appropriate evacuation decisions can be made if required.

The secondary containment surrounds the primary containment, fuel pools, emergency core cooling systems, main steam lines up to the outboard isolation valves, residual heat removal systems, reactor water cleanup system, and any other potential primary coolant leak path or containment leak path. By having a secondary containment, you are allowed to have a larger amount of leakage from your primary containment, as the secondary will filter any leakage out.

The secondary is just the reactor building. The upper elevations utilize blowout panels for more extreme events to prevent catastrophic failure of the reactor building supports (which functioned at Fukushima during the H2 explosions). It's not designed to be essentially leak right like primary containment is, it's just designed to be a gas control boundary.

 

[Astronuc]

it's just designed to be a gas control boundary.

and keep the weather out.

 

[mheslep]

regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. ... How many generations

About 'one or two' is the right answer, when compared to i) harm presented in the environment by nature, i.e. naturally occurring elemental poisons like arsenic or radioactive elements, and ii) man made harm, especially those created in place of nuclear power like mountain sized coal ash dumps and the removal of mountain tops to obtain coal.

It is in the nature of the physics of nuclear processes that an event from a single nucleus can be detected with high precision with the right equipment. The same physics allows age determination of some artifacts via the decay of carbon isotopes, the determination of the age of the earth, and the tracking of trace amounts of compounds in the body for medical testing. The precision of these measurements does not also mean any and all radioactivty will harm people.

 

[mheslep]

and keep the weather out.

The slight internal low pressure has me curious about 'the weather', as it seams it would pull in both outside temperature extremes and humidity, making the outer containment volume hard on equipment or forcing the HVAC and HEPA to work quite hard.

 

[mheslep]

Everyone I know in the 'hard' sciences is pro nuclear

Same here. Unfortunately, everyone I know that works for or with some kind of environmental advocacy group or government agency is either at least hostile to nuclear or oblivious to nuclear as clean energy alternative.

 

[SredniVashtar]

Regarding waste disposal, it is a nonexistent issue as long as there is someone caring for them. ... How many generations...

About 'one or two' is the right answer, when compared to i) harm presented in the environment by nature, i.e. naturally occurring elemental poisons like arsenic or radioactive elements, and ii) man made harm, especially those created in place of nuclear power like mountain sized coal ash dumps and the removal of mountain tops to obtain coal.

So, just to be clear: according to you, that 3% of nuclear waste that decays between 1000 and 10000 years will not be a problem after one or two generations. That is, 35-70 years.
And that's because other elements - like arsenic - are poisonous. You must be a relativist.
Well, I do reckon that in 70 years of time, nuclear waste disposal will not be a problem to me. But your thesis appears extremely weak to me.

It is in the nature of the physics of nuclear processes that an event from a single nucleus can be detected with high precision with the right equipment. The same physics allows age determination of some artifacts via the decay of carbon isotopes, the determination of the age of the earth, and the tracking of trace amounts of compounds in the body for medical testing. The precision of these measurements does not also mean any and all radioactivty will harm people.

Was this randomly generated? We're not talking about radioactive bananas, here.

 

[mfb]

So, just to be clear: according to you, that 3% of nuclear waste that decays between 1000 and 10000 years will not be a problem after one or two generations. That is, 35-70 years.

There is nothing special about 1000 or 10000 years.
Everything on Earth is slightly radioactive, and will stay so as long as the Earth exists. Waiting until something "is not radioactive any more" doesn't make sense.
The vast majority of the radioactive nuclei in nuclear waste decays within the first 100 years, afterwards the activity is very low. Unlike chemical waste, nuclear waste gets less problematic over time. Yet chemical waste storages don't have to prove that they contain the material for thousands of years. We are back at the double standards.

We're not talking about radioactive bananas, here.

Nuclear waste safety regulations seem to be made based on "oh my god, we can detect some activity!" Yes we can, because the measurements are extremely sensitive. That doesn't imply it would be dangerous.

 

[mheslep]

It is the nature of radioactivity that the radioisotopes with the shortest half lives yield the most energy over a half-life, are the most dangerous. The highy radioactive fission product gases that travel and isotopes like iodine-121(8 days), strontium-89 (50 days) vanish in a generation. The radioisotopes with long half-lives are mostly alpha emitters that dose by ingestion, with no penetrating power. After 500-1000 years the radioactivity of a ton of spent fuel is on the order of that from a ton of Uranium ore dug from the ground. The uranium in the Earth has a half life of billions of years.

Harm is relative. That's a fact, not a position. Hence the case for medical x-rays.

 

[SredniVashtar]

There is nothing special about 1000 or 10000 years.
Everything on Earth is slightly radioactive, and will stay so as long as the Earth exists. Waiting until something "is not radioactive any more" doesn't make sense.

You are building a straw man, here.
You are probably confusing me with someone else, but I never said the waste will be harmless when it will be "not radioactive anymore". It is reported that 3% of nuclear waste will decay to the level of an equivalent amount of uranium ore (not inert material, uranium ore - care to compute how long will it take to reach the background radiation level?) in between a thousand and ten thousand years. It does not mean this waste will be no longer radioactive. We should wait an infinite amount of time for that, so - apart for the straw man you have just made up - nobody said that.

And, I get it that you prefer to shift the focus on the 97% of waste that decays much faster. But that is a mutatio controversiae: I wasn't talking about that.
Are you still standing by your statement that that 3% of waste that will decay (to the levels yaddayaddayadda...) between 1000 and 10000 years will be harmless after one or two generations?

 

[mfb]

You are probably confusing me with someone else, but I never said the waste will be harmless when it will be "not radioactive anymore".

I didn't say you would have said that. But I think I don't understand your "relativist" comment.

(not inert material, uranium ore - care to compute how long will it take to reach the background radiation level?)

Depends on what you call background level. Millions of people live above various uranium ores. That doesn't seem to worry people, probably because it is considered natural. Some even expect a positive health effect from radon springs.
Nuclear waste mainly consists of nuclides with shorter half-life than uranium. It reaches the activity level (per mass) of uranium within 1000-10000 years, afterwards it has a lower activity (see the plot above). But why do we compare 1 ton of uranium ore with 1 ton of waste? There is less than 1 ton of waste per ton of uranium ore mined. We actually reduce the total activity long before the "per ton activity" reaches the same level.

Are you still standing by your statement that that 3% of waste that will decay (to the levels yaddayaddayadda...) between 1000 and 10000 years will be harmless after one or two generations?

If you eat it after 2 generations: No. If you bury it properly: Yes.

 

[SredniVashtar]

I think I don't understand your "relativist" comment.

It was a joke, based on the concept of relativism, non relativity. Poison A is not poisonous since there is also poison B that is as much as poisonous.

Depends on what you call background level. Millions of people live above various uranium ores. That doesn't seem to worry people, probably because it is considered natural.

My point was that the "radioactive as an equivalent amount of uranium ore" is an estimate favorable to nuclear advocates, not tree-huggers. EDIT: But we can take that figure as starting point.

But why do we compare 1 ton of uranium ore with 1 ton of waste?

The point is that when the waste has the radioactivity of the same amount of mined ore, it's like you have never disturbed it. That radioactivity was there before using it and (apart from the different location, distribution and concentration in a single waste disposal facility - which in itself can be a problem), so you can say you did not pollute the planet.

If you eat it after 2 generations: No. If you bury it properly: Yes.

Good, so we are back to square one. How to bury it properly for ten thousand years. Please go back to this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ro-nuclear-energy.914038/page-10#post-5769055

 

[mfb]

The point is that when the waste has the radioactivity of the same amount of mined ore, it's like you have never disturbed it. That radioactivity was there before using it and (apart from the different location, distribution and concentration in a single waste disposal facility - which in itself can be a problem), so you can say you did not pollute the planet.

You can reduce the specific activity (activitity per mass) by mixing the waste with random other stuff. Does that make the waste better? Specific activity is simply not the right metric if you dig out 1000 tons of ore and then produce 1 ton of highly-active waste out of it (+999 tons of other stuff). If you dilute the waste by a factor 1000, you reach the natural specific activity after less than 100 years. But that is just an accounting trick, it doesn't reduce the waste.

Good, so we are back to square one. How to bury it properly for ten thousand years.

Yes, but you don't need the "no atom can ever escape" approach that current regulations require (a bit exaggerated - but not much). Uranium ores stored their uranium for more than a billion years, with minimal leaks. Nuclear waste disposal sites try to be even better - otherwise we could simply dump the waste into uranium mines.

 

[jim hardy]

Mother Nature tested fission reactors long before she made us.https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ral-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/

 

[russ_watters]

Good, so we are back to square one. How to bury it properly for ten thousand years. Please go back to this post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ro-nuclear-energy.914038/page-10#post-5769055

With all of your unseriousness/sarcasm, it is difficult to tell if you even understood the point you were responding to (from me) or had any serious point of your own to make. So instead of going back, please try again to make your point in a serious way. Because I'm entirely serious when I say it doesn't need to be buried at all, much less for ten thousand years.

 

[SredniVashtar]

Unseriousness? C'mon, I've seen much less mutatio controversiae, straw men and logical fallacies in a new age newsgroup.
Let's take the above mentioned post, for example:

I said:

"As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years [...] can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time."

You replied (in a highly serious way, let me add):

"So what/who cares? If civilization has fallen so far that whomever is left can't understand any current language or a giant sign with a skull and crossbones on it, they will certainly have bigger problems to be concerned about than what is in that barrel."

And now, you say you are entirely serious when you decide to change the subject (technically it's a mutatio controversiae) and say that it does not have to be buried and much less for ten thousand years. So, Why didn't you just say so in the first place? You could not defend that? Wanna use "protect" instead of "bury" and "five thousand years" instead of ten? I did not pull those figures out of a hat, I took them from the World Nuclear Association. Non exactly Green Peace.

 

[russ_watters]

Unseriousness?

Yes.

I said:
...
You replied (in a highly serious way, let me add):
...
And now, you say you are entirely serious when you decide to change the subject (technically it's a mutatio controversiae) and say that it does not have to be buried and much less for ten thousand years.

There is no change of subject there. Not having to be protected for a very long time means it doesn't need to be buried. So: do you have a serious response to that or not?

I did not pull those figures out of a hat, I took them from the World Nuclear Association. Non exactly Green Peace.

So what? Does that mean you don't understand what their point is and are just repeating them without being able to justify why it matters?

Also, since you didn't quote your own follow-up in the above exchange, I will take that as an acknowledgment that it wasn't serious. So moving forward, please make an effort to present your arguments more seriously.

 

[SredniVashtar]

There you go:

""As for the wastes, that 3% that decays between 1000 and 10000 years [...] can you be sure they will be taken care of after all that time? Will you write instruction in English, Latin, Sumerian, Hieroglyphs or Linear A? Ten thousand years is a long time."

Awaiting a serious answer.

 

[mfb]

Do we have to make sure that it will be taken care of?
That is the first question.

Is there any relevant danger to humans if no one takes care of it?

My comment about eating it was serious. Is there any risk that someone goes to nuclear waste and physically eats it? It is a collection of mainly heavy metals.