/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6961009
because people don't understand the science and engineering behind nuclear power

this is the reason

because m-m-muh waste!!!!

>>6961009
Because in densely populated countries, like The Netherlands, nobody wants a bunch of nuclear waste burried right beneath it's home.

>>6961009
Because the day before Fukushima, only fear mongers thought Fukushima could happen.

Not to mention all the political stuff; how can other countries know if uranium is being used for fuel or weapons?

Because Uranium is a finite resource and all alternatives have failed to work out.
It has its uses but I wouldn't use it as a main power source.

>>6961015
>>6961034
Name any industry that if it was run as poorly as chernobyl or fukushima wouldn't have been just as bad.

>>6961040
They use different enrichment levels for weapons and reactors. Weapons need to be much more enriched.

>>6961042
Google thorium.

>>6961049
Thorium hasn't worked out despite being developed for decades. We had a Thorium reactor that was shut down in the 80s.

>>6961049
>Name any industry that if it was run as poorly as chernobyl or fukushima wouldn't have been just as bad.
>everything is everything
You should do more self-directed research on what nuclear power plants actually are and the ramifications when they go wrong vs. say a coal plant

>>6961009
Because it's not fucking clean, there's no such thing as a clean steam cycle, how do you think we get pure water? What do you think happens to the waste of that process?

>>6961052
why was it shut down?

>>6961049
Fucker your thorium, even Chorus is more viable than your Th wetdream.

>>6961058
Why don't you Google it? I thought you knew everything about Thorium.

>>6961058
Airforce decided a thorium-powered bomber was stupid and cut the funding.

>>6961062
>"Airforce decided a thorium-powered bomber was stupid and cut the funding."
-Thorium researcher who lost his funding

>>6961060
Not the same person, fag.

>>6961060
im not the same anon as >>6961049

>>6961009

Ignorance fueled by the coal industry. When people in the future read about us in their history books they will think the same thoughts we think when we read about the dark ages

>>6961049
>They use different enrichment levels for weapons and reactors. Weapons need to be much more enriched.
Yes, but similar facilities can be used to create either, so it would be difficult to regulate on an international scale

>>6961069

No, they won't. When people read about the late 20th and first half of the 21st century they'll consider us the catalyst age.

>>6961057
There's nothing exotic in demineralization plant waste, just various hydroxides and acids.

>>6961009

I have been a big proponent of nuclear power but have been informed by a friend that the amount of uranium we have wouldn't last much time at all and that we'd be better off going for sustainable energy sources rather than pushing for nuclear power which will die out quickly due to uranium shortages.

>>6961840

Your friend is a moron

>>6961840
If we used breeder reactors the uranium we have would last a very, very long time. Fusion will most likely be feasible before there is any risk of fuel for breeder reactors run out.

>>6961020
This is bullshit.

>>6961058

Because as it turns out, there's lots of uranium around and we don't need to generate that much power to begin with.

>>6961009
>clean, healthy, few deathes

hohoho! What about the fate of long half-live radio-nucleids? Deaths: Any avoidable death should prevented. Also, what about uranium exploration and mining processes in dictatorial / corrupted countries vastly supported by nuclear using ones?

>>6961009
To my mind, nuclear power is a interesting resource. Yet mankind is too young to use it since there is nor real knowledge about the long-term implications of wastes, deconstruction techniques for plants or proprer maintenance processes. Also, it generates wars an corruption throughout the world and in non equally profitable among coutries.

Also there are only limited uranium exploitable resources both in terms of location and duration. It is just a short term mirage that should be reserved for future generation when there will not remain other viable energy production means.

>>6962984
Neon should be unattractive to anyone.

>>6961009
>I can only see virtues
Then you're an idiot. Don't make threads on /sci/.

>>6961009
Because of shitty executions. Human failure creates massive fallouts and people fucked up the storing of nuclear waste repetitiously. I am only against it because people are so fucking incompetent. It's not like we need it either, other renewable energy sources can cover our demands and they create jobs too. Not to mention that the steady energy supply means a lot of energy goes to waste over night without proper storing mechanisms like pumped-storage hydroelectricity (which destroy nature btw).

>>6963592
>other renewable energy sources can cover our demands and they create jobs too.

Green washed

>>6963691
Prove me wrong.

>>6963697
ok
>solar baseload
>wind baseload
>battery backup baseload (smart grid)

>>6963723
Well let me disprove that
>term
>term
>term (term)

Wow that was easy. Didn't even have to provide any valid information.

>>6963723
Batteries and grid in the same sentence? That's almost a logical fallacy.

Wait,didn't e Fukushima happen because water got into the back up generators,and the structure of the plant was just fine?

>>6963723
Baseload is a myth.
the grid needs energy supplied to it all times (50Hz or 60Hz) and the intermittent nature of solar and wind does not allow this to happen, not with todays technology.

Nuke plants last twice as long as a wind or solar equivalent and is the safest form of electricity generation.

IOW nuclear is the most reliable source of energy, for now.

>>6963752

Fukushima happened because it was run by humans. Humans will screw things up sooner or later, and the planet will get more and more radioactive. It is not a technical problem, it is a human one.

No matter how badly you screw up a windmill, you will never have a Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster.

coal and gas is cheaper

>>6963755
>>6963751
i am agreeing with you, all the things i listed are at best, infeasible, and at worst, a joke

>>6963767
its was two major mistakes; making the tsunami wall too short and putting the backup generators on the ground floor.
the trick is making all reactor designs walk-away safe, or their safety systems being dependent on simple things like gravity, or hot things melting things

>>6963795
But did the earth quake and tsunami affect the building and reactor in a structural manner?

From the sounds of it,the cause was a lost of power, and if there was power there would of had been no melt downs.

>>6963755
> Baseload is a myth.
> the grid needs energy supplied to it all times
But that is the definition of baseload.

muh feels mothafucka

>>6963807
What I meant is that we do not need one specific form of energy as "baseload" like coal or nuclear.

>>6963802
yes, the reactor shut down just fine after the earthquake, as did the other nuclear reactors across japan

the lack of backup generators feeding water into the reactor is what caused the meltdown

If you really want to know why Thorium never went anywhere... Study the origins of Nuclear power in the US... Start with Rickover...

>>6963836
the whole "WE HAD TO MAKE MORE PLUTONIUMMMMM" thing is sort of a myth
in reality, nuclear engineers back then had a real hard-on for fast breeder reactors and wanted to push those through r'n'd as fast as possible.

several decades and several fantastic failures of fast breeder reactors later...

>>6961020
fly it out to Nevada

>>6961009
Because cost and cost of disposal.

>>6963942
Fucking this.

There is also a substantial risk that if a disaster does occur, the end result will be a full blown catastrophe. For me weighing the pros and cons greatly benefits the cons, since renewable is safer, easier and can't cause a disaster.

>>6961049
Every industry is run like that.

>Lowest cost bidder
>long tail risks ignores
>if disaster occurs declare bankruptcy and let taxpayer foot the bill

>>6961009
Because humans are fallible things. Living in a world with sleeping stockpiles of their missile brethren, power plants can sprout up likewise, what is the difference. Can the perfect model of control over them actually exist? It is what exactly needed to make human progress sustainable, breathtaking potential resources. Except it's a worse case than all our eggs in one basket when the basket can explode upon looking away at the wrong time.

>>6962931

Beat me to it.

>>6965231
>There is also a substantial risk that if a disaster does occur, the end result will be a full blown catastrophe.
This is exactly why I keep telling the government to stop building dams, but they won't listen to me.

>>6965293
>what is the difference
Powerplants don't explode.

>>6961009
Why waste time and money on fission when fusion power is right around the corner?

>>6965373
This. The amount of people who think a nuclear meltdown means a nuclear explosion is astounding. A nuclear plant is literally incapable of any sort of nuclear explosion.

>>6965384
People have also been brainwashed that current nuclear arsenals are capable of destroying the Earth. If not by explosive power than by exaggerated side effects like fallout, nuclear winter or EMP.
Once you look up the weapon designs, history of nuclear explosions and do the math you will realize how harmless nuclear war really is in the big picture.
Nuclear bombs could theoretically destroy the world but nobody wants them to.

>>6961020
So keep pumping harmful gases into the ozone

>Humanity will die because of idiots being against the one good alternative energy source
>The Simpsons killed us all

I am a biofag and don't know anything.
I hear there are 2 types of fusion and we funded the wrong one. Can someone explain?

>>6965673
we're not funding fusion enough period

>>6961009
Nuclear waste takes forever to become inert. We're having a hard time as is dealing with regular trash, imagine if we were generating 2x as much trash every year, half of which is radioactive and cannot be degraded to useful inert stuff like you can compost or recycle regular trash.

Aside from that, the cost of failure is catastrophic. Carricaturally, 1% chance of 1m deaths is much worse than 10% chance of 50k deaths.

Plus nuclear plants can be used as hideouts for weapons-grade radioactive product generation.

>>6965679
>1% chance of 1m deaths
where are these millions of deaths?
the absolutely worst nuclear disaster we have ever had was Chernobyl and that only killed 41 people
Before you say bombs remember that they were specifically designed to kill while reactors are not.

Nuclear waste can be reintroduced into the fuel cycle and the remainder is safe enough to be stored in a lead lined container and left outside.

>Plus nuclear plants can be used as hideouts for weapons grade radioactive product generation

jesus christ

>>6965679
>1% chance of 1m deaths

But there are 435 nuclear power plants in the world right now! Oh shit!

>>6965704
>>6965715
>reading is for faggots, murrika fuk yeeeea

>>6965673
There's fission, which is the splitting of heavy elements like uranium. That's what we learned to do 70 years ago and what we're doing when we operate a nuclear power plant.

Fusion, however, is fusing smaller atoms such as hydrogen. This releases many times more energy than fission, and it's what we learned to do shortly after with the hydrogen bomb. It's harnessing the same power the sun uses.

So, obviously the choice is clear which is more effective at getting energy: the one using safe elements and many times more energy, or the one using radioactive elements and considerably less? The problem lies in that we do not yet have the capability to harness fusion power. It's so damn powerful it melts everything. We need to find a way to safely harness it and then we'll have giant amounts of clean energy.

We're pretty close to it. We've been getting very close with lasers.

>>6965727
>It's so damn powerful it melts everything.
That, and we haven't found an efficient way to start a fusion reaction except with a nuclear bomb.

>>6965384
>>6965373
A power plant might not have a high-efficiency nuclear detonation like an atomic bomb, but they can explode, and that explosion can be directly powered by fission in the core.

At Chernobyl, that's what happened. They did the wrong things with criticality management, there was too much fission in the core, so there was too much heat, which meant there was too much pressure (in this case, steam pressure, but anything boils when it gets hot enough, even steel), so it exploded. Then it was worse because the granite moderator caught on fire.

It was a "nuclear explosion" by any reasonable definition. If it was a bomb, they'd call it a fizzle, because it wasn't a big, city-destroying explosion, but you don't need a whole lot of explosion to make a big mess when it's breaking containment on a nuclear reactor and spewing nuclear waste and fuel all over the place.

fission is great, no argument there. but the issue with its cleanlyness is not that easy. Yeah, fusion itself doesnt produce relevant amounts of radioactiv material, but as soon as you use D-D or D-T fusion you have neutron emission, which affects the hule material of the reactior, making that radioactive. And we are even further away from economic P-Boron fusion, where that issue does not occure.

Of course there is H3 fusion, but thats currently extremly hard to optain.

>>6965765
it wasnt a nuclear explosion in any sense. There was no rapid (relatively speaking), sudden energy emission by the fuel. But if you poke a whole in a hightly pressurized container filled with a liquid heated far beyond its boiling point you obviously get a mess

>>6965770
>There was no rapid (relatively speaking), sudden energy emission by the fuel. But if you poke a whole in a hightly pressurized container filled with a liquid heated far beyond its boiling point
Do your homework. Nothing poked a hole in the Chernobyl reactor except a sudden energy emission by the fuel.

>>6965759
>That, and we haven't found an efficient way to start a fusion reaction except with a nuclear bomb.
that's not true, we havn't been able to reach ignition and produce a fusion plasma that lasted longer than ~30 sec or so

>>6965785
You can be pedantic all you like, but the point is that the explosion is not what makes nuclear power plants dangerous, it's the fallout. Your points don't change the fact that people who think living next to a plant means they're going to wake up one day to see a mushroom cloud outside their house are ill informed.

>>6965792
Explosions at a nuclear plant are how you get fallout.

Also, you don't need a nuclear bomb to have a mushroom cloud. You just need a big explosion.

You're the one being pedantic. There's nothing ignorant about being afraid that a nuclear reactor you live by is going to blow up and kill your family.

>>6965790
>efficient way

ICF and tokamak are not efficient

>>6965785
to be exact, its speciulated (although apparently likely) that the second explosion was caused by the fuel undergoing runaway prompt criticallity.

the first one was a simple steam explosion caused by overheating of the collant because of the graphite tips of the control rods

>>6965813
there are more than 2 types of fusion devices. and ICF is a broad category. there are devices that could potentially be ignited with microwave heating alone, but most of the limited budget goes toward tokamaks

that feeling when China is literally building 5 nuclear plants every year

>>6965812
And yet in all the nuclear meltdowns we've had, not one explosion was large enough to actually affect the area outside of the plant and everyone had plenty enough time to evacuate.

>>6965834
>coal plant blows up
i can move back after a week or less.
>nuclear plant just "melts down"
i can't move back to the land of my birth right for 1000 years.

>>6965815
Second explosion was from hydrogen. Same as at Fukushima. Fuel rods zirconium reacted at high temperatures with water.

>>6965836
>land of my birth right

You're letting "there's a very tiny chance I'll someday have to move if htey build this plant" stand in the way of cleaner, dependable energy. It's basically superstition.

>>6965842
And thus we're back to the 1% chance of 1m death caricature. Checkmate.

>>6965957
1 million is an absurd exaggeration of hte effect of a modern day meltdown. Fukushima was a 5 on the scale and there weren't a bunch of deaths from it.

As far as I know, only a few have ever been above a 5, with Chernobyl being a 7. With better regulation in place, they operate more smoothly. Just because an industry has risks doesn't mean we shouldn't continue with it. Driving a car is one of the most dangerous things we do as a society. But we don't go "oh no, millions of lives are not worht the risk!" Instead, we minimize the risks and have mitigate the losses when they occur.

Nuclear power plants are many times safer than car driving as a whole. It's not a 1% chance that a million will die. It's a .00001% chance and it grows ever smaller as our strategies for operation and safety improve.

I'm sorry, but you'd be an absolute fool to say that tiny fraction isn't worth the risk.

>>6965967
And now we go down the reply chain again to reach
>murrika fuk yea, reading is for faggots!

>>6965985
I've yet to see you have a legitimate defense as to why nuclear power should be avoided. That wasn't about the ever-increasingly tiny risks associated with the fantastic payoffs.

>>6965995
I've yet to see you not ignore everything that displeases you and pretend reality doesn't exist if you say so.

>>6965998
I've only been in this thread for like 4 posts. So it's really just an issue of "this tiny, tiny chance of some people having to move someday is enough to make me adamantly against nuclear power'?

Just say that's it, if it's it. Then we can just agree to disagree. You view the risk as too great, I view it as trivial.

Just don't try to blow the actual risk out of proportion is all I ask.

>>6966025
Have you tried graduating from kindergarten? I heard that's where the kids learn to read these days. It would surely improve your value by quite a lot.

>>6966073
I'm an idiot, illiterate, etc. yes yes, that's all well and good.

If that is the case, then simply tell me what you really mean.

Spell out for me, as you would a child, why Nuclear Power is a bad idea.

>>6966078
I already tried. 3 times. You're either purposefully pretending the words don't exist or you're illiterate. These are the only two possible options.

>>6966102
Spell it out again. Humor me. Just this once. Give me your concise reasoning.

>>6966114
Why should I enable the clinically retarded?

>>6966162
Fine. It was nice talking with you, anon.

>>6961034
>Because the day before Fukushima, only fear mongers thought Fukushima could happen

LOL because no one died from the radiation. All of the deaths were contributed to the earthquake and tsunami.

>>6961009
Like everything else that exists, one guy will fuck it up for everyone else.

Clean energy is too much for humans to handle without abusing it anyways, because it would not be used if they could use a more easy to abuse energy. What is the point of non abusable energy?

>>6966289
so much this holy shit

In the interests of balance (and to end the checkmate) there are some pretty compelling, if a little one-sided docs out there.

All anti-nuclear fags should watch 'Pandora's Promise (2013)'. Its pretty a pretty compelling pro nuclear argument.

Can anyone recommend an anti-nuclear doc i could watch? And i'm talkin about something well researched and not some overhyped daily mail bullshit...

>>6966289
>no one died from the radiation. All of the deaths were contributed to the earthquake and tsunami.
First of all, the word is "attributed", and nobody died immediately from the radiation because:
a) there happened to be a strong wind directly out to one of the biggest and emptiest patches of ocean on the planet, and
b) there was a rapid and efficient evacuation of 300,000 people from the affected area.

1600 people died in the evacuation, and a city had to be permanently abandoned. A lot more would have died if they had not done the evacuation.

Don't laugh Fukushima off. It destroyed a city, and it could have done a lot worse if the wind had been blowing the wrong way. Moreover, it was the kind of plant failure that nuclear advocates had been claiming would never happen in an orderly first-world country, and a demonstration that such failures were likely to come at the worst possible times.

Furthermore, the Fukushima disaster is NOT OVER. They still have problems with that site, and radioactive material is still escaping. We don't know the long-term consequences of losing that much radioactive material into the ocean. What we've discovered in the past is that pollutants spread over a wide area aren't always diluted into harmlessness, but can be re-concentrated by natural processes. We're probably never going to know how many people get cancer because of eating a fish with plutonium in it, just like the Chernobyl long-term stats are all guesses.

>>6965704
>Chernobyl and that only killed 41 people
What? Chernobyl consequences still kills people in 21 century

>>6966823
>3 years passed after Fukushima
>Tepco still dumps radioactive water into ocean
>Chernobyl
>shelter built in 206 days
> who is first-world country now?

>>6966827

Yes, 9 people have died if cancer from Chernobyl radiation exposure, the most recent in 2005.

So, 50 people then.

>>6966823
>Anti-nuke shitlord detected.

Fuck you and fuck your fearmongering lies you piece of shit. That 1600 death toll came from a survey done by Mainichi Shimbun, a fucking newspaper (who needs scientists when you have the muckrakers at the National Enquirer) Current death toll projections are at 130 and that's based on the antiquated LNT model, which assumes, contrary to evidence, that there are no correction mechanism for human DNA

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/DNA-Damage-Repair-Mechanisms-for-Maintaining-DNA-344

In reality, there are thresholds for radiation doses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11769138

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2013/01/22/hot-spots-earths-5-most-naturally-radioactive-places/

Cancer rates should be skyrocketing in these areas. In fact, you have to get up close and personal with the Fukushima reactor go get the same dosage. See pic
(Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332))

Did I convince you? Absolutely not because you're a fearmongering cocksucker. This information is for the people who you tricked into following you on the path of de-industrialization and primitivism. A path that will cause the deaths of billions, not millions, but billions. Funny thing about de-industrialization, infant mortality rates skyrocket and life expectancy plummets. Diseases thought all but eradicated in the Western world like polio or bubonic plague (The Black Death) will come back with a vengence (yes, there are cases of polio in the West but they are extremely rare). It's our modern technology fueled by cheap energy that makes our standard of living possible. Without modern technology, the entire US would have to be de-forested just to have enough land to grow food to feed 300 million people. De-industrialization means global famine.

Don't be fooled by the Luddites. Utopia does not wait for us in a world that has been de-industrialized.

>>6961009
Maybe because it's dangerous, dumb ass!

Wait let me guess you just started high school science and you think that nuclear power is all benefit?

>>6961059
>HURR DERP TH343 R N0 TH0R1UM R3ACT0R5 1N T3H R3AL W0RLD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

>>6966984
Let me guess. You just started crying for dead trees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G880gxjj9dI and just heard that nuclear power was bad.

>>6961009

>nothing here to worry about mate.

>>6966990
It's been 45 years and nobody has managed to make one operate over a prolonged period.

>>6967014
Fuck you, you dishonest bastard.

>>6966982
>>Anti-nuke shitlord detected.
>Fuck you and fuck your fearmongering lies you piece of shit.
Why would you start like this and then follow up with a long post?

Nobody's going to read the rest of what you say when you lead with the textual equivalent of throwing a handful of your own shit and hooting and gibbering like a monkey.

>>6967047
Any excuse not to listen.

>>6967235
He's right, though. Stop lobbing your shit around when arguing a point and treat them like reasonable human beings--if you don't, no one will listen to you.

>>6962984
>Also, what about uranium exploration and mining processes in dictatorial / corrupted countries vastly supported by nuclear using ones?
THAT'S nothing compared to the dictatorial countries which produce oil

>>6966844

Have you seen the condition of the Chernobyl sarcophagus in recent years? That fucking thing is threatening to collapse and I sure don't trust the Russians to do something about it before it does.

>>6966946
137 people are officially counted as having died as a result of chernobyl.

>>6967341

I'm sure at least one coal miner dies every day.

>>6967346
Not of acute coal radiations or coal-related cancers, that's for sure.

>>6961009
>Why are people against nuclear power?
Mainly because it's been so horribly mismanaged that there have been a few horrendous accidents, which understandably have put people off it.

>>6967341
and usa citizen are officially free and not spied upon, get a reality check

>>6967361
My sides are through the moon! How can you be so blind and then tell others to get a reality check?

>>6967341
Which is comparable to deaths from wind and solar per energy production. There are deaths from wind and solar from construction accidents and from mining the rare earth elements necessary to make wind and solar work.

Pic related

>>6967357
>Not of acute coal radiations or coal-related cancers, that's for sure.

Uh, many many coal miners die of lung cancer, and that's not even counting the huge amounts of radioactive material pumped into the atmosphere and water supply from mining and burning coal.

>>6967244
>>6967047
>B-be more polite on 4chan pls!

I listened to him. If you can't get past someone calling you a bad name on 4chan, you should get off 4chan.

>>6967909
This fucking chart should be how these conversations always start.

>>6967917
[citation needed]
Now consider how many people would die in a year on average if every coal plant was chernobyl.

>>6968073
If the average coal plant was an underbuilt, unsafe, corner-cut plant used for unsafe experiments, then yes, I think we'd have a lot more accidents.

>>6967917
True. Two of my great-grandparents got compensation from the mining companies for black lung, even though one of their husbands died decades before the lawsuit in a mine explosion.

>>6968073

It's really not hard to find stats on the increased mortality in cities that make heavy use of coal power, or on the radioactivity of coal smoke. That's ignoring the deaths (direct and indirect) from coal mining and transport.

> Now consider how many people would die in a year on average if every coal plant was chernobyl.

Probably fewer than if every oil pipeline was the NNPC Jesse Oil Pipeline, or every coal plant was the Kingston Fossil plant, or every hydro plant was the Shimantam Dam.

>>6967301

Kekekek
When amerifats don't like something but they don't have a good argument they become certain it is "going to collapse"

>>6968251
You're a disgrace to whatever country you come from.

>>6965818
Those are the only two that got even close to 30 seconds

same reason people are scared of sharks even though you're twice as likely to be killed by a vending machine falling on you

Another good question: Why are hyperbolic cooling towers so strongly associated with nuclear power?

>>6968288
The simpsons.

Most of the west's attitude towards nuclear power can be traced to 70's-80's pop culture, but the simpsons did the most damage to the perception of commercial power plants.

>>6961009
People are scared by Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl. And waste dumping. Not understanding that there are dozens of types of reactor designs. It all comes down to ignorance.

>>6968147
You're ignoring the deaths not caused by physical damage in the plant (e.g. drowning at fukushima while trying to fix this shit, deaths in the explosion at chernobyl), why shouldn't we do the same?

>>6968628
>People are scared of coal mining incidents. And coal smoke. Not understanding there are dozens of types of coal designs. It all comes down to ignorance.

>>6968829
But noone actually gives a fuck about coal mining accidents or coal smoke.

>>6968878
You clearly do.

>>6968558
Lol
>it was the Simpsons and not the very real accidents which destroyed people's lives which ruined perceptions of nuclear power

*fedora tipping intensifies*

>>6968893

Since those accidents were no worse than routine accidents from other power generation, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion

Due to the possibility of another Oppau scenario, we should stop using the Haber process.

>>6968905
>three mile island
>Chernobyl
>Fukushima

>Not worse than other accidents

>>6968925

Correct. Chernobyl is the only one with a significant death toll, and that's comparable to other incidents in coal, oil, and hydro. Meanwhile, people are killed every day in coal mining, and it emits far more radiation.

>>6968928
>Sperglords measuring seriousness only in body count

Making a large area uninhabitable is a serious problem too. And people aren't stupid enough to think that deaths that happen later aren't connected to the accident.

Moreover, coal has been deployed on a much larger scale over a much longer time, so you're making a fallacy via sampling bias.

>>6968928
>making a region inhabitable for hundreds of years doesn't count guys, it's not real damage!11

>>6968976
>>6968977
>The exclusion zone is uninhabitable.

>>6968976
>>6968977

271 hundred thousand people live within 10 miles of Three Mile Island as of 2010

>>6968976
>>6968977

Look up Centralia, Pennsylvania.

Also, no nuclear accident has made "a large area uninhabitable for hundreds of years."

And it's not sampling bias because the stats are per kWh.

So basically, you're wrong on every count.

>>6969007
What stats?

>>6968925

>three mile island

LITERALLY nothing happened at 3 mile island. 3 mile island was an ALMOST accident.

>>6969007
>hey guys I did a study
>took 20 people. Three of them were morbidly obese, and 17 of them were normal weight.
>after one year one of the 17 died, but zero if the 3 fatties
>therefore I've proven that low cholesterol is more dangerous than high cholesterol
>before you complain about my statistics, you'll note that I calculated my results in cholesterol per kg.
>since the 3 fatties weighed as much as the other 17. There is no risk of sampling bias

> problem?

>>6969007
It is sampling bias because it's not per kwh that counts, it's per site. Moreover, when the sample for nuclear plants is so low, you can't have meaningful statistics (but you can have likelihood estimates). The chernobyl exclusion zone is still live to this day. So basically, you're wrong on every count.

>>6969041

Except there are hundreds of nuke plants, idiot.

>>6969010
see
>>6967909

>>6969045

Please tell me this post is just a troll.

>>6969060
Ummm.

That is a plot with no source or methods that some sperglord could have done in mspaint.

>do you even into statistics?

>>6969054
>Still not getting it
What is long tail risk?

>>6969064
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

>>6969054
Touché
>Nuclear power plants aren't fat guys either.
You've defeated me with your superlative deductive reasoning. Clearly my analogy makes no sense. Nuclear power plants don't even have cholesterol!

>>6969072
>published march 2011
>gee when did Fukushima happen?
>whooops!

Also. This is just some random tard on the internet. He doesn't have anything close to a description of methods.

>hurr durr I took the official USSR statistics from Chernobyl(super trusty worthy!) then divided it by total power produced by nuke plants ever!
>QED!

>>6969083
So prove that the rates are higher, then. If Nuclear Power is so dangerous, then you'll have something other than anecdotal evidence to back it up.

And, again, nobody died from fukushima.

>>6969083

Fukushima didn't kill anyone.

>>6969083
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

>>6969075

So explain your argument in a way that makes sense given that we have been using nukes for 60 years, currently run 435 plants, and have only had one major accident.

>>6969088
My argument is simply this. The worst possible nuclear accident is exponentially worse than what we've seen, and we don't know how frequently that will occur, because it is a long tail risk. So it is safer to stick with known technologies(like renewables) that have no conceivable long tail risk and death rates that are small and well understood.

And FWIW, I don't have to do any statistics. The American public already agrees with me.

>>6969097
>I don't have to do any statistics

You lose every argument forever.

>>6969097

What do you think the worst possible nuclear accident is?

>inb4 nuclear explosion

>>6969102
It is the difference between affirmation and negation in a debate. You're making an affirmative claim. (The public has made a mistake in classifying nuclear power as dangerous) Thus the onus falls upon you to prove your claim.

>>6969105
Ground water contamination with the right isotope in a metropolitan area could kill everyone. Some radioactive isotopes are extraordinarily potent killers.

>>6969097
>The American public already agrees with me

The American public is incredibly fickle and base almost all of their opinions on gut feelings or what the media tells them. You're in poor company.

>>6969090
>Fukushima didn't kill anyone
>as many as 600,000

http://enenews.com/experts-fukushima-victims-to-include-up-to-300000-deaths-over-100000-still-births-and-over-100000-children-with-genetic-deformations

>>6969108
You pedantic fuck. That has never been the argument here. You could just as easily frame the argument as "the world has made a mistake in investing in nuclear power", in which case you're the one making an affirmative claim.

>>6969113
>estimated future deaths

>>6969114
I guess it is a good thing that I wasn't OP and set the grounds of the debate

>>6969108

Even if that were true, it's already been amply demonstrated ITT.

But I'd say the scientific opinion is the default position here, not public opinion.

>>6969119
OP asked "why". The debate that OP framed, then, would be WHY the public thinks the way it does. Not whether or not they are wrong or right.

>>6969121
The only post citing any scientists ITT is this one
>>6969113

>>6969117
>hurr durr since it kills people slowly and painfully it doesn't count

>>6963005
>There is no real knowledge about the long-term implications of wastes
If you have no idea what you're talking about don't open your fucking mouth.

>>6969113
>600,000

No. See the WHO report:
http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/#ixzz2MnbjhPmv

>>6969133
>Trusting governments

They're all in the pocket of big nuclear, man. You can't trust them, maaaan. They're just shills, maaaaaan. You just can't trust the man, maaaaaaaaan.

>>6969133
Seems like different groups of scientists cited arenot in agreement. No consensus. Sounds riskier than renewables where risks are known and short tailed.

>>6969137

Actually, what it seems like is that your source was nonsense.

>>6961009
Are you joking OP? Just look at the image you posted, a shit ton of (probably radioactive) smoke is pouring into the atmosphere and destroying it. Nothing making that much smoke is healthy.

>>6969151
0/10 try harder faggot

>>6969141
Regardless of the true cost, WHO has an ethical responsibility to downplay the risk to minimize panic, whereas independent cancer researchers have no such responsibility. So I'd say your source is bollox.

>>6969153

Seriously? That's what you're going with?

>>6969210
We're measuring the reliability of two sources. I provided a rationale for why WHO would have incentive to understate risks. You made an unsupported assertion.(eg nuh uh!)

If you have something legitimate to say, I suggest you say it, or concede the point

>>6969224

You asserted that the World Health Organization is involved in a massive conspiracy of lies, with a motive that makes no sense. That doesn't warrant a serious response.

>>6969224
Yeah man, you can't trust those reliable organisations. Fight the power maaan. The future is renewable maaaaaan.

>>6969241
Not a conspiracy. You said that.

Just that they have an institutional incentive to understate the costs. When the research is so provisional and the event so recent, that just requires a little editorial discretion. Not "massive conspiracy"

>>6969255

Covering up 600,000 deaths is not "editorial discretion," it's lying by a large number of people, for no reason. Why would they disseminate inaccurate information? Do they have a history of these sorts of hoaxes?

>>6969274
It isn't *covering up* 600k deaths. It is just different estimates for attribution of cause. It is hard to attribute deaths for cancers, even when the cause is pretty clear. (It took 50 years to prove the cancer link for cigarettes. )

No one needed to cover the deaths up. They were happening all the time around us, but we just didn't know why.

>>6969153
They have an ethical responsibility to OVERestimate the risk (which it sounds like from the article, but I have not read the actual WHO report) so that society can decide if the risks are still worth taking in the future.

>>6969284
People were clearly killed by the panic(several thousand, estimated) and the people in the area have already been contaminated. So do you increase panic and almost certainly kill more? Or do you let the condemned die in peace; preventing new panic deaths.

>>6961049
>name any industry that if it was run as poorly as chernobyl or fukushima wouldn't have been just as bad.

Are you retarded? What other industry has the potential to spread lethal amounts of ionizing radiation into the environment? Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for thousands of years.

>>6969299
The exclusion zone isn't uninhabitable, you can stand right next to the sarcophagus today.

>>6969293

How would people be "killed by panic" from a report released 3 years after the fact about deaths in other countries?

>>6969299
>thousands of years

Hyperbole: the post.

>>6969299

You are objectively wrong.

>>6965766
You mean fission, not fusion, right?

>>6965765
That is not what a nuclear explosion is. The explosion was not directly caused by the fission reaction. It was caused by the buildup of steam pressure. A nuclear explosion is a rapid, nuclear chain reaction. That is not something that happened at Chernobyl. You're arguing an asinine point and arguing it poorly

>>6969304
Japan/tepco claims there were like one thousand stress induced deaths(but zero from radiation)

Go figure

>>6963015
Fuck you and your nanobots kid. No one cares about your stupid little robots moron

>>6969293
>People were clearly killed in the panic(several thousand, estimate)
Do you have a source for this? I'm not doubting that this was true, I'm just curious where you got this information.

>So do you increase panic and almost certainly kill more?
These WHO reports were released more than a full year after the accident. Panic levels would have most certainly dropped by then, and the people who wanted to leave would have gotten the fuck out already. Do you seriously believe a single report on some radiation levels can inspire panic and hysteria on a level that's even close to an actual plant melting down?

At the end of the day, we're both arguing over the reputability of the source. Earlier, you stated that you provided a rationale for why WHO would have incentive to understate risks. I provided you a rationale for why WHO wouldn't. Besides, why get nuke money when you can get coal money?

>>6969330
>source
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/life_and_death/AJ201403070057

They're also saying maybe 60-100 children have gotten thyroid cancer so far.

>>6969346
Here's the source on thyroid cancer.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/24/national/science-health/four-fukushima-children-suspected-thyroid-cancer/#.VJs4e_QIAJR

They're saying it was almost 3k stress deaths.

>>6967301

>Russians

>>6961009
the capital costs are too high to make it as economically viable as coal, oil, or natural gas

>>6969306
Half life of U-235 is 703,800,000 years, Pu-239 is 24,100 years. So scenarios which include turning fuel rods into aerosols could lead to a very long term radioactive contamination.

>>6969419
>I have literally no understanding of how activity and lifetimes affect health.

>>6969105
Meltdown of reactor, long time non-contained fuel rods fire inside remains of reactor and spent fuel pools after, unfavorable wind spreading fallout over some megalopolis (like Tokaido corridor).

>>6969424
You'll figure it out eventually

>>6969424
>half lives have anything to do with health

>>6961009
>Why are people against nuclear power?

People are stupid.

>>6963795
>or their safety systems being dependent on simple things like gravity, or hot things melting things
You go too far! No control nature!

>>6966982
>whines about fearmongering
>proceeds to claim that without nuclear power our world is going to deindustrialize and that BILLIONS of lives are at stake

real classy, faggot

>>6966998
what the fuck did i just watch

what the fuck

>>6963755
It's very possible to store energy for later, though. Beside, with people starting to install solar panels, heat recyclers and wind turbines in their homes, energy company are experiencing reduced energy demand during the day (referred to as the duck's belly - and it's getting fatter every year), threatening instabilities in the grid even with their fine control on the minute-ahead or 10-minutes-ahead markets. In general, we're needing less energy, not more energy, compared to before.

>>6966998
>think of the tree's feelings!

>>6966998
>>6970314
>these are people who vote
>these are people who vote against Nuclear Power
>these are people who vote against GMOs

>>6970324
> these are people who shoot rockets at nuclear plants

It threatens the bank accounts of people that own coal mines.

Isn't the technology becoming safer and more efficient continually, including these past few years? I've read about advancements in emergency shut downs that will be far more efficient than what they had to do with all the water storage after Fukushima. I don't have the source off hand at the moment but maybe someone can attest to this.

>>6963773

The tread should have ended here, and yet it keeps on going.

>>6970594
>implying a rocket would do fuck all to a nuke plant

>>6961009
>Why are people against nuclear power?

Conservatives only supported nuclear power in order to pester environmentalists.

After the advent of fracking, conservative support quietly melted away.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578690-thanks-cheap-natural-gas-americas-nuclear-renaissance-hold-fracked

>>6971026
Conservatives don't really have a problem with nuclear power, they like coal and oil better and will go with those if they're cheap but if nuclear is the best option they'll go with it, well, most would oppose a nuclear power plant in their districts but not in general.

Liberals are the ones who tend to have an irrational phobia of nuclear power.

>>6971039
A lot of pitching for nuclear power was about energy independence, but that became less important due to shale oil and gas.

>>6966166
>>6966114
>>6966078
>>6966025
Why would you keep responding? lol

>>6969483

This answer sums it up nicely. I can't add anything else other than my agreement.

>>6961009

Ignorance and fear.

>>6969125
That's plain wrong
see >>6966982

>>6969476
>implying they don't

>>6971127
not really

sooo are we ignoring the giant thing in the sky that radiates energy constantly?

>>6971129
I see. You got a good grade, that means you can never be wrong on the subject. My bad

>>6971134
glad we're clear then

>>6971135
Just to be clear though, how can the amount of radioactive material present not have an effect on dosage and health consequences?

>>6971137
well it depends on a lot of different parameters. the amount of the material, its specific activity, the type of radiation it emits, it's distance from the recipient, whether the contamination is airborne/in a water supply, if ingested, where is will collect (your nuts are more sensitive than say your liver, and iodine will preferentially collect in your thyroid). i have no clue what those guys were talking about with muh half lives, but its a lot more than an isotopes half live that determines the effective dose to a person, which is essentially a measure of biological damage

>>6971145
Well I never thought that half life was the only factor, but Mr. Ace Student seems to think it doesn't matter

>>6971169
it's less significant than several other factors

>>6971170
But still significant

>>6971171
depends on the situation. sometimes it's completely irrelevant

>>6971173
Your statement implies that overall it is significant. In the context of nuclear accidents it is significant for how unhealthy it is to be in the vicinity of the site over time

>>6961009
>Why are people against nuclear power?

Because sometimes democracy works

>>6971232
...against reason

>>6969097
>I don't have to do any statistics
-Everyone who was ever right about anything

>>6971620
Sometimes it is a good thing to recognize a hard problem and appreciate that one can't answer it satisfactorily without a large amount of effort. According to dunning-Kruger, it is this ability to recognize limitations which discriminates the competent front the competent.

>>6972358
It's also the reason superstition exists, you fucking moron. "Common sense" is fine when you're in the workplace and dealing with day-to-day matters, but relying on it for public policy and scientific understanding is absolute nonsense. For example, the billion-dollar industry of cable news is entirely dependent on criticizing leaders based on "common sense" claims, and yet Fox News and MSNBC come up with radically different results. And, when it comes down to it, neither is right. Because the world all issues are multi-faceted most are incredibly complex. So no. You having a gut feeling that Nuclear Power is bad does not constitute you having a valid argument and you fucking already know that or else you wouldn't be on the science board.

>>6972364
It isn't a gut feeling. It is logic. We know that renewables are safe. We don't know that nuclear is safe. Determining if nuclear is safe is a pretty hard problem. This using renewables instead of nuclear reduces risk.

Sure nuclear *might* be safe, but why risk it?

>>6972437
>What is acceptable risk
>Sure nuclear *might* be safe, but why risk it?

Because, unlike renewables, nuclear is a carbon free power source that can guarantee base load power.

>>6972444
>Carbon free, guaranteed base load

>what is hydroelectric power

>>6972461
>what is hydroelectric power
Something that only works in certain locations
Also something that have killed ~100 times more people than nuclear power.

>>6972484
But known safety levels. With good statistics. And with something like dynamic tidal power, could be employed much more widely and safely.

>>6972488
>But known safety levels.
Known to be more dangerous than nuclear power yes.

> tidal power
if this is an argument for hydroelectric then fusion reactors are an argument in favour of nuclear power.

>>6972437
> we don't know that nuclear is safe
> we don't know that modern agriculture is safe
> we don't know that mass transit is safe

You're demanding an impossible standard of proof. Also,

> cars are demonstrably unsafe; why the fuck would you risk using them?

>>6972484
1 million dead Chinese don't weigh up to 1 dead Japanese.

>>6972503
The difference is that we have reason to suspect that nuclear power has long tail risks but we don't know the frequency.

>>6972496
Dynamic tidal power is different from regular tidal power and quite plausible. Chinese have contracted a Dutch firm to build a large scale pilot.(basically despite receiving much less funding than fusion it is ready to be deployed on a much larger scale)

There is also no risk of a dam burst killing lots of people because the installations are built at sea level

>>6972461
Hydro is perfect energy. Too bad there is too little of it. Most usable energy near populated areas is already used there is no potential for growth.

>>6972520
DTP can be deployed at many coastal areas. And there is a huge amount of coast

>>6972537
>Along the Chinese coast for example, the total amount of available power is estimated at 80 - 150 GW.

We'll say about 115 GW.

>In 2010 China generated a total of 446 GW

So it's not even good enough to provied power for China 5 years ago let alone 5 years in the future. Granted it seems like a good power source, but it clearly can't function by itself.

>>6972547
>implying 100% of power needs to be from one power source

>>6972512
The same can be said of cars.

>>6972550
No.
Cars have extremely well characterized risks. There is no chance that a car accident will destroy a city.

>>6972549
At no point did anyone say that in fact:

>but it clearly can't function by itself.

Implies the exact opposite of what you're saying, this means that the Chinese must be able to make up the shortfall from other means, that other means will be, by necessity, nuclear.

IKR! I saw some Australian protesters once saying uranium fuels war! IT HAS ONLY BEEN USED TWICE! And people don't understand nuclear explosions! Bombs use U235 power plants use U238! ITS FUCKIN IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A NUCLEAR BLAST!
Just because it's radioactive doesn't mean it's that dangerous! I mean listen to this faggot
https://www.youtube.com/user/BeautifulGirlByDana/featured
-->People are hating something they have no idea about!<---

>>6972547
Base load from hydro, variable load from other renewables.

>>6972555
>implying nuclear is the only other technology

>>6972552
>Cars have extremely well characterized risks.
So do nuclear power plants.

>There is no chance that a car accident will destroy a city.

And? There's no chance of a nuclear power plant destroying a city.

>>6972552
Well a car can move 5 persons. a central nuclear provide energy for millions. If u built a car that can move a millions of person, it seem pretty obvious that it could, too destroy a city.

>>6972561
It's the only technology that we currently have that meets the criteria.

>>6972560
>Base load from hydro

But it doesn't provide a base load. That's the problem.

>>6972563
but... but... common sense!

>>6972552
nuke plants have extremely well characterized risks. their accident probability is like 10^-6 - 10^-10 per year

i blame how complicated nuclear energy is, to the layperson, which gives the illusion of it being shrouded in mystery and makes it very easy to criticize from ignorance

unfortunately this is almost impossible to overcome, which is why the support for LFTR seems to be centered around it being "different" from "old" reactor designs, and the safety systems are pretty easy to describe to the layperson
>oh, if it gets too hot it drains into a tank then freezes

>>6972570
not the same person, but how does hydro not provide baseload?

>>6972570
Solar, natural gas, geothermal, hydro, wind

>>6972563
>no chance of nuke destroying cities
They've forced enter regions to be evacuated. If drinking acquirers became contaminated with the waste it could kill anyone that drank the water. Very quickly.

>>6972578
99 accidents since 1952. That comes out to something like 150% per year.

>>6965231
negative effects of nuclear: A large sum of radioactive particles released into the environment at relatively short period of time.
OR
slow accumulation of radioactive material that will sit contained for a inconceivable amount of time.

negative effects ofCoal/oil: Slow and constant releases of carbon and other organic compounds that are harmful to the atmosphere.

Unless we come up with a real way to keep carbon out of the air, nuclear seems awful tempting.

>>6972899
>Solar
Can't be guaranteed
>Natural gas
Not carbon neutral, although CC could work
>Geothermal
Not possible or sufficient everywhere
>hydro
Again not sufficient or possible everywhere
>wind
Hahahahahaha!

>>6972906
>150% per year
percent of what? go back to 4th grade before you run your mouth

>>6972908
This poor nigger thinks we can only use one type of power

>>6972906
actual major accidents

>>6972903
>it could kill anyone that drank the water. Very quickly.

You clearly have no idea how radioactivity impacts health.

>>6972906
He means the probability that any plant will have a meltdown. Not that one will happen during a year.

Also, 99 accidents doesn't mean 99 nuclear meltdowns. You can count the number of those on your fingers.

>>6972910
1.5 accidents per year

Estimated frequency x 100 = percentage chance

You.
Fucking.
Retard.

>>6972915
>every year there is greater than 100% chance of a nuke plant accident
lel you're one stupid fuck m8

>>6972913
>what is polonium?
>where does polonium come from?

Alpha emitters which would be harmless on the skin are rapidly fatal if ingested.

>>6972911
Not even close, I'm making a case for nuclear power by contrasting it against the alternatives. That doesn't mean that the others can't support nuclear, but nuclear will have to be providing the majority of the power for the majority of countries.

>>6972912
99 accidents that caused more than $50,000 dollars worth of damage

>>6972915
why the fuck would you convert that to a percent? You clearly have no idea what percentages are used for, it just sounds scarier to use 150 than 1.5 which is why you did it.

>>6972915
master troll?

>>6972922
damage /= health risk

>>6972919
If 100 accidents happen in less than 100 years that implies greater than 100% probability per year

>>6972926
>100%
>probability

>>6972921
But your responses were only valid critiques if you assume that it is the sole method of generation.

>>6972920
>What is concentration
>What is activity

>are rapidly fatal if ingested.

Only if you ingested enough for it to be fatal.

>>6972926
>probability
also your definition of accident is shit

>>6972925
Health risk is all that matters when selecting power sources?

>>6972931
you're right. no other power sources cause financial damage

>>6972927
How stupid are you?

>>6972928
They're also valid if you assume it is the main method of generation, particularly if you're looking at other methods of generation to take nuclear's place as the main method.

>>6972934
Good point

>>6972929
>doesn't know that it takes less than one microgram of polonium to kill someone

>>6972937
>not expressing fatal dose in concentration

>>6972935
>nuclear
>12% of power generation
>main method

Wut?

>>6972939
for what purpose? the dose from 1 microgram of Po-210 is lethal. whatever concentration

>>6972940
>he was speaking in future tense
>immediately discard that and accuse nuclear of being too under utilized in the present time

>>6972939
No one even gives the shit to rats, it is so dangerous. So the lower limit for fatal dosage is a little murky. It is less than 1 ng / kg

LD50s vary from method of ingestion and can be as low as 10 ng lethal dose if inhaled. Maybe 100 ng oral.

One gram could kill 20 million people.

>>6972944
>Dissolve 1 microgram of Po-210 in an aquifer

>How many glasses would you have to drink for you to take an accumulated dose equal to ingesting 1 microgram of concentrated Po-210?

>>6972950
>Dissolve a metal into water

>>6972952
Pls be trolling.

>>6972950
Why assume you only dissolve the lethal dose for one 10 people in the aquifer? That seems pretty arbitrary. Nuclear reactors produce 1000s of kg of waste. Many of the constituents are extremely lethal and water soluable. (not just the polonium)

>>6972957
>dissolve an extremely dense metal into water
the answer is it doesn't stay dissolved for long at all

>>6972952
Some of the people on this board are so stupid that they need to be euthanized.

>>6972960
You don't understand even basic chemistry.

Colloids settle. Solutions do not.

Kill yourself.

>>6972970
literally the opposite

>>6972976
Solutions do not settle.

>>6972976
Oh well that good, I guess all those people worried about <span class="math"> ^{137}Cs[/spoiler] compounds getting into the environment can relax, after all a metal so dense can't be water soluble, right?

>>6965812
Your fears are not justified.

>>6972982
lel Cs isn't even dense

>>6972986
>missing the point/10

It still form soluble salts you retard.

>>6972982
you're comparing cesium to polonium, that's a incredibly significant difference in density

>>6973084
It doesn't matter to the overall argument. Metals can be dissolved in water. end of discussion

>>6973092
but not all of them, and not polonium-210 (at least, not for any reasonable time)

>>6972982
its not even close to the same thing getting Cs in the water as it is gettin Po in the water

>>6973096
Sure, but that's different from saying metals don't dissolve in water

Overall I agree with using nuclear energy, but nobody on either side has cited anything about the whole radioactive waste in the water concern and I don't know shit about that.

>>6973107
turns out actinides really dont like seeping into water tables
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
in the case of this incident, where the reaction site was very close to an underground reservoir, turns out almost none of it got into the reservoir (based on examining decay products in the reservoir)

>>6973113
also, nuclear waste casks are designed for zero leaks or seepage over 10,000 years, and they'd probably last a good deal longer than that. they're very impressively overengineered

however the expectation is that fuel recycling or burnup will become a thing later on in the future

>>6973113
That article was interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with what you're describing.

>>6972949
>One gram could kill 20 million people.

sorry man, im calling bullshit.
I think your confused with what amount is a fatal dose. keep in mind being poisoned doesn't guarantee death.
Where did you get this from? It's more like one gram kills like a third. 6.5^6 people. maybe a little bit more, not much.

>>6973210
LD50/30. lethal (in 30 days or less) dose to 50% of people that would receive that dose

>>6973219
>>6973219
so.... 10 million would be certain lethal cases?
so i'm a little over 3 million off.. thats embarrassing.
anyway i'm too tired to check my work.

>>6973237
it's just a way to say statistically if you get X dose, you're probably fucked. like the LD50/30 for radiation is around 3000-5000 rem. if you get that much you're probably gonna die.

>>6973242
*300-500