[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 74 KB, 1024x680, Cherenkov radiation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9667462 No.9667462 [Reply] [Original]

Why are normies so afraid of nuclear power?

>> No.9667467
File: 2.18 MB, 2178x3000, Malcolm_X_NYWTS_2a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9667467

>>9667462
because they think the water vapor clouds that comes from the plants are radioactive lol, also normie media

>> No.9667474

>>9667462
Two reasons:
1) Atomics are like poison gas. The notion that something you can't see or feel or dodge can kill you is more frightening than a bullet.
2) The AEC had a dual mission; commercialize atomic energy and build a nuclear arsenal. In the Cold War, the latter took precedence. On the occasions when something DID go wrong, they out-and-out lied to the public. "Nothing to see here. Just move along." So even if the risk is low, no one trusts them -- or their successor organization.

>> No.9667481

>>9667462
Huh? What normies are you hanging with?The normiest normies I know all heavily support nuclear power. I mean, guess most of them are hippies that work for a company that's trying to build SMRs, so maybe they're a bit biased.

>> No.9667492

>>9667481
You must be seriously autistic or from a small nuclear community. Look up general perception of nuclear energy.

>> No.9667497
File: 550 KB, 480x800, The_Living_God.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9667497

>>9667462
>Why are normies so afraid of nuclear power?
they hate us for our freedom

>> No.9667501

>>9667481
Unless you're hanging out with a bunch of dorks and autists like yourself, this is not true. There is a good percentage of the population that is absolutely terrified of nuclear power, and protest it constantly. Most of the rest are either on the fence of somewhat distrustful of it. You have to realize that when people think of nuclear power, they think of Chernobyl, Three Mile, and Fukushima. They do not understand why these accidents happened, or that Three Mile and Fukushima weren't really dangerous at all. The media whips them into such a panic about it though that that's all they think of.

It's the same process that makes normies afraid of climate change, or assault weapons or Russia. They don't understand the actual data, they just know that someone on the news is telling them it's scary and dangerous, so they're frightened of it.

>> No.9667505

>>9667462
that light effect has some kind of name... i can't remember what it was though. looks really spooky anyhow, don't you think?

>> No.9667509

>>9667505
Literally says right in the filename what the effect is called. Cherenkov radiation.

>> No.9667518

because of that stupid movie with Jane Fonda in it

>> No.9667899

>>9667462
>Muh nuclear storage

>> No.9667923
File: 141 KB, 1600x875, Jimmy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9667923

>>9667899
>Did you see a sign outside my house when you pulled in that said "used control rod storage?"

>> No.9667926

Because safe nuclear power isn't very good

>> No.9667946

>>9667462
There is an entire
>industry
devoted to making people afraid of things like nuclear energy.

The fact that I cleverly turned the word "industry" green there is not a coincidence.

>> No.9667955

>>9667474
>On the occasions when something DID go wrong, they out-and-out lied to the public.

Please append full list, to the best of your knowledge, of times things went wrong with nuclear energy under the AEC, and the casualty figures.

>> No.9667970

>>9667462
normies are stupid plus anti-nuclear propaganda

>> No.9667972

>>9667518
And the strange timing that caused the minor accident at 3MI to happen just after the film was released, letting the media go insane writing stories lining a nothing burger news story with a fictional movie in which something really bad actually didn't quite happen even in the movie. This, the media concluded, was clear proof that nukes are trying to kill your children and their puppies and butterflies and shit. Or at least that's how they wrote their stories.

Then the more Luddite Greens, and the Greens that need to raise some money, have kept it going ever since.

I live about equidistantr between a nuclear plant and a coal plant. If I wanted to worry about radiation, I'd go picket the coal plant, their unshielded huge-ass pile of coal gives of more radiation every fucking day than the nuke does in a year.

I don't bother to do that because the amount given off by either is negligible, of course.

>> No.9667976
File: 87 KB, 1134x1333, radiation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9667976

I'll go ahead and drop this in, so when the bickering starts you guys don't have to go find it.

>> No.9667991

>>9667955
December 30th, 1968. Cecil Kelley died 35 hours a criticality incident at Los Alamos.

July 24th, 1964. An operator died at Wood River Junction after a criticality incident.

November 25th, 1955. The EBR-1 suffered a partial meltdown at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Local residents were not told any details about the incident.

July 12, 1957. The infamous Sodium Reactor Incident. The details of the incident were (unsuccessfully) covered up, and locals were not given straight answers about the radiation release from the incident.

And of course, Three Mile Island. While the AEC no longer existed at this point, the biggest controversy around Three Mile Island wasn't the fact that the plant suffered an incident, it was the great lengths the government and company went to to cover up the incident and its affects on local residents, going as far as to pay off many local residents in exchange for non-disclosure agreements, and the attempted suppression of medical reports concerning pregnant women within the fallout area.

That isn't even a complete list. I'm not even against nuclear power. I think it is an amazing and powerful source of clean energy. But nuclear power is heavily controlled by the US government, and governments are corrupt as fuck and only exist as a bureaucratic scaffold to try and hide their fuckups behind a pretty facade.

>> No.9667996

>>9667972
God, that movie was so fucking stupid. I liked the part where the hippies went to the local town hall or whatever to protest the plant by naming off the names and ages of their children, WHO WERE STILL ALIVE DESPITE LIVING NEXT TO A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. Like how the fuck was that supposed to prove anything?
>Look at all these chilluns. They're perfectly healthy and fine, but I'm scared that they won't be because I'm a retarded housewife that never even graduated high school, so obviously my opinion on high energy nuclear physics is very relevant.
Democracy is a fucking joke.

>> No.9667998

>>9667976
Now what's the safe radiation limit?

>> No.9668003
File: 145 KB, 416x194, 1480733318090.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9668003

>>9667976
>tfw I eat 50mSv worth of bananas a year

>> No.9668007

>>9667998
Define "safe." Either way, it is far, far, far higher than any radiation dose you would receive next to a power plant. Especially considering that modern-day designs for things like liquid salt thorium reactors are way safer than previous gen plants. But we can't build them in the US because of our retarded hiatus on nuclear power plant construction.

>> No.9668307

>>9667462
Cold war memories and propaganda. Remember that the whole world expended 50 years with nuclear powered Damocle's Sword hanging over its head, and currently the Nuclear Club in general and America in particular is terrified of non-nuclear nations developing nuclear energy on its own because that from there making a nuke is basically just a small step, and that is the only thing that can really anyone, even a small rogue nation, basically untouchable by coventional military means.

>> No.9668356

>>9667462

dangerous half knowledge. Know roughly what is going on there but then nothing exact. Just think about that most people believe that an atomic power plant can aat worst EXPLODE like an a-bomb with a nice mushroom cloud.

>> No.9668408

>>9667462
The last paper I wrote as an undergrad was a 12 page paper on this.

To summarize, it's because the media sensationalizes accidents and everyone ends up with confirmation bias.

Same reason far more people are scared of air travel than driving even though it's far more likely to die in a car crash.

>> No.9668955
File: 497 KB, 800x1900, evilest shit.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9668955

>>9667462
because they don't understand anything about nuclear science
the only thing they know is that it has been used to make weapons
and that badly made or badly damaged reactors tend to explode.

they understand about as much on the topic of nuclear science
as they understand about how their sense of smell works.

>> No.9668957

>>9667462
because it's nothing but a bs excuse to not invest in renewables

>> No.9668977

>accident on nuclear plant: have to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the area
>accident on any other power plant: everyone goes about their business
Wow, so safe.

>> No.9668998

>>9667462
Because the environmentalists are being led by liars, frauds, and incompetents, and the followers are just human, e.g. extremely incompetent and tribalistic. They've been fed lies about the dangers of nuclear power, aka the dangers are greatly exaggerated. They've also been fed lies about solar and wind and other green tech - solar, wind, and other green tech is very unlikely to work to stop global warming. We need lots and lots of nuclear.

>> No.9669005

>>9668977
Facts:
>Coal kills ~300 people every day from premature deaths from airborne particulate pollution
>WHO says Chernobyl killed 300 people or less

>> No.9669010

The only reasons shills started shilling nuclear energy all of a sudden is because energy companies are now afraid of losing control of the energy market.

If they could transition to nuclear, they would retain full control. Heck it would becomes even stronger.

But alternative energies would destroy them because by their nature, they are very decentralized.

Other than that, nothing changed in fission tech, to make it more appealing than it was 20 years ago. Heck, if anything it is much less appealing, both because the talent pool for nuclear techies has shrunk and there isn't much expertise left. And also because dealing with nuclear fuels has become much much costlier both economically and politically.

>> No.9669013

>>9669005

Yes, but with coal you are in control of that. With nuclear you are not. Also with coal the "death" is visible. With nuclear its this invisible death spirit that might afflict you and you will die some time later.

>> No.9669018
File: 15 KB, 322x322, scared wojack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9669018

>>9668003
>eating over a thousand bananas per day

>> No.9669019

>>9667462
Because they have been conditioned to fear the word "radiation".

>> No.9669022

>>9669019
You can actually see this with microwave ovens.
There are people in my country who refuse to use them because of "radiation".
They love carrying a smartphone with active cellular modem near their balls 24/7 though.

>> No.9669028

>>9669013
Debatable.
Radiation is detectable. Easily detectable. We fear it because we have been conditioned to fear it.
We don't fear pollution. Not enough. We say "oh the smog is bad today", we don't go "Jesus Christ I'm not going outside because there's far more radioactive particles in the air due to the bad smog" because visible pollution is associated with industry and wealth.

It's literally just a perception issue. Our perceptions have been warped to favor one side over the other.

>> No.9669087
File: 90 KB, 600x400, really_causes_you_to_ponder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9669087

>>9667976
wat

>Background dose received by an average person over one normal day (10 µSv)
>EPA yearly limit on radiation exposure to a single member of the public (1 mSv = 1000 µSv)

So the amount of background radiation received by an average person per year is 3.6 times higher than the EPA yearly limit on radiation exposure.

>> No.9669106

>>9669087
That's probably in addition to the daily background radiation.

So basically, if you are living near a nuclear plant you can't be getting 1000 µSv per year on top of the normal background radiation.

>> No.9669981

>>9667462
Because there's a long history of mismanagement and lying in the nuclear industry. Look at the revelations from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Prior to the accident, TEPCO had ignored multiple prior warnings, falsified reports, left incidents unreported, mishandled high-level waste, and so on. During and after the incident they spent more effort lying to the public about what was happening then they did solving the actual issues.

>> No.9670267
File: 144 KB, 800x694, 091814-tbt2-ins1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9670267

I think this show is the ultimate culprit.

>> No.9670347

>>9669981
> Look at the revelations from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.
> implying fukushima was anywhere near as bad as what the msm portrayed
There was a huge amount of lying, it was just all on the environazi side. In reality, it was only a minor part of a much larger and more deadly disaster. The back-to-back earthquake and tsunami that preceded it killed more than a thousand times as many people as fukushima. By comparison, fukushima was fucking nothing. The only reason it gone blown so out of proportion was that the media loves to fearmonger about nuclear power because it helps put more money in the pockets of green industry leeches.

>> No.9670360

>>9670347
None of that is relevant to my point at all.

>> No.9670369
File: 304 KB, 1662x628, fukushimashell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9670369

>>9669981
Fukushima incident was actually nips fucking up big time by trying to make nukes fuel on it, that is the main reason everything went to shit there so fast and they didn't want to invite anyone to help. Also everyone were overblowing the initial happening, while the true consequences of it got downplayed a lot, it is quite literally worse than chernobyl ever was. Reactor shell got a huge leak hole and all the shit from it went into the ground waters, pic related.

>> No.9670373

Because in most countries nuclear power is run without any real concern about safety. The two main motives in nuclear energy are profit on the private side and weaponry on the government side.

Safety is expensive, so private industry will always seek to cut corners there until it eventually blows up in their face, and even when it does the pressure to make record quarterly profits will often lead to industry disregarding past lessons and repeat the same mistakes all over again. Also, even if it is somewhat profitable, unless you're really neglecting safety, nuclear energy will never be the most profitable thing you can do. Fossil Fuels will almost always be more profitable, and since private industry is about profit maximization, that's what they'll pursue. The only time nuclear power is really competitive in that regard is if you're building a reactor that is so barebones that it's basically a time bomb. That means that the only time private industry will really want to pursue nuclear energy is exactly the time when you really don't want them to do so.

There are a handful of countries that have extensive nuclear power infrastructure that have consistent safety records. France, for example, has been able to pull it off fairly well. The problem is that whenever someone starts talking about more nuclear energy, they're almost always talking about deregulation, ignoring that countries like France that have been able to use nuclear power safely have been able to do so precisely because of their ridiculously oppressive regulatory standards.

Nuclear power has promise, but it shouldn't be treated lightly, and no one should delude themselves into believing that it will be cheap or easy to implement. We should pursue it, but we should do so with the understanding that it's going to be a difficult road to walk. Widespread adoption of nuclear energy will require heavy government expenditure.

>> No.9670425

>>9669981
this.
>>9667462
because humans, especially STEM majors, are bad at understanding very rare but very bad outcomes of events logically. And why they are to be avoided. But we do intuitively understand them, but math autistics dont.
The corollary might be playing the lotto seems like a waste of money, till you win. The unlogical brain puts more value on a small loss than the chance for a huge gain

>> No.9670434

>>9667497
tehy hate us for our freedumbs
and our demockery; and tehy don't
know the meaning of "hazmat"

>> No.9670441

>>9667501
>when people think of nuclear power, they think of Chernobyl, Three Mile, and Fukushima
duhh
>They do not understand why these accidents happened
Wrong. They do understand the meaning of "fuckup".
>Three Mile and Fukushima weren't really dangerous at all
Oh you starry-eyed idealist, you.

>> No.9670463

>>9667972
>teh media
>teh media
>teh Luddites
>I don't bother to give a shit
this is why no one cares when you die

>> No.9670517

>>9670425
I want to congratulate you on this expertly crafted troll post

>I'm smarter than math autists, that's why you should never build nuclear plants and always buy lottery tickets

>> No.9670531

>>9670441
They weren't, faggot. Fukushima and Three Mile Island were completely blown out of proportion by the media. Furthermore, normies do NOT understand why they happened. Almost all of them think that what happened at Three Mile and Fukushima was a core meltdown, when that is not true. They also think that when a nuclear reactor melts down, it explodes like a bomb.

>> No.9670540

>>9670517
math autists also think Communism would work, if they got to do the planning

>> No.9670542

>>9667462
Because they don't understand it.

>Fear is the only true enemy, born of ignorance and the parent of anger and hate.

>>9667467
>normie media

The real danger of our era

>> No.9670547

>>9670542
we understand it just fine, you just dont understand how lazy and evil most humans are, see here>>9670540

>> No.9670549

>>9670540
I've noticed that scientists tend to have communistic tendencies because they're autistic and don't understand the difference between theory and practice. Whereas enginiggers are almost always more free market/capitalist types. Theorylets BTFO again I see

>> No.9670550

>>9670540
Communism can work if you exclude human element from the equation, as in if get AI or aliens to govern us.

>> No.9670557

>>9670550
People being corrupt is not the only reason communism fails you dolt. It fails because it cannot react to the needs of the market, because supply and demand is not something that you can directly control, and because despite what the Bible or Constitution or your elementary school teachers tell you, all people are NOT created equal and do NOT do equal work and deserve equal pay.

>> No.9670572

>>9670557
That is also solved by having sufficiently advanced ai direct tap into global economical system and consumers personal data. You can argue it wouldn't be communism but (benevolent) dictatorship, but technically nothing stopping it from doing the whole from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

>> No.9670576

>>9670550
>exclude human element
>equation
sounds like a dystopian hellscape.
I actually support nuclear energy though, as long as it uses modern designs, has a built in shelve life to the plant, has a beginning to end management plan for waste, and has robust independent audit system not susceptible to politics. Also should be built in huge scales

>> No.9670579

>>9670572
> from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.
Yeah, it stops when it tries telling people that it's going to take their property and labor and distribute it to people too retarded, lazy, or incompetent to do the same work. At that point, someone is going to take a baseball bat or a fire bomb to the mainframe. Nobody wants to live in a communist country, and nobody wants to live under a communist robot either.

>> No.9670582

>>9670549
Some engineers I know sometimes go too far the other way. And think hardcore libertarianism works, that "the market" is like one of their self correcting machines they learned to build in school, but in practice libertarianism leads to surfdom

>> No.9670859

>>9670547
Considering we've had several decades of obsolete nuclear energy infrastructure run by incompetents, and it's STILL the safest form of energy production, what more understanding do you need?

>> No.9670871

>>9667462
people fear what they don't undersatnd

also the US nuclear power stations can go critical because they are designed to also produce feedstock for weapons


you want to be safe, go with the CANDU reactor

>> No.9670877

>>9670859
you dont get it, 50 years is not the right time frame. Think, 200, 300 years, and one year ruins a major city and its water or farmland for a very long time. Thats what I mean by very bad but very rare things

>> No.9670951

>>9670877
The right time frame for what? The question is not whether very rare very bad things will occur, the question is whether very rare very bad things are worse than common bad things. But you keep trying to avoid this, since any comparison to alternatives will destroy your fear mongering. Nuclear power is the safest form of energy production, get over it.

>> No.9670956

>>9667462
cause dey stupit

>> No.9670959

>>9670951
huh? very very rare bad things are not as bad as kinda rare very bad things?

>> No.9670968

>>9670959
bad things are not as bad very bad things.

>> No.9670970

>>9670968
bad as nucular dab bad

>> No.9670973

>>9670970
not as bad as this human garbage here >>9670956
I dont like this person

>> No.9670989

>>9668998
Not just this, but the fact that "pro-environmentalist" congressmen have sabotaged nuclear power in order to make it appear worse than what it actually is in order to obtain votes at the cost of both the environment and national security. If the waste doesn't get stored properly, it's not a nuclear issue, it's a management issue.

>> No.9670996

>>9668998
>We need lots and lots of nuclear.

Yeah, to "grow the economy", right "scientist"?

kek

>> No.9671251

>>9670959
A bad thing being rare is better than it being common.

>> No.9672044
File: 1001 KB, 500x281, image.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9672044

BUT UHMM ANON WHAT IF IT E X P L O D E S LIKE A NUKE AND KILLS EVERYONE CANT HAVE THAT HAPPENING FUCK SCIENCE MATH IS HARD

>> No.9672193

>>9670267
It was unpopular before that show.

>> No.9673154

>>9672044
but they can't explode like a "nuke" tho

>> No.9673156

Because there is no difference in using nuclear power to get cheaper heating costs

and WMD

>> No.9673195

>>9670877
Isn't the area around Chenobyl and Pripyat habitable now? I believe people are returning to Fukishima area too or have been? I wouldnt eat the wildlife around there but have we not recovered from these "disasters" that people still fret over?

>> No.9673199

>>9673154
The joke and point

Your head

>> No.9673230

>>9673199
jokes on you I was just pretending to be smart

>> No.9673410

>>9667923
1) Becasue when something goes wrong with nuclear, it goes very horribly wrong and the effects last for decades. (Chernobyl and Fukushima e.g.).
2) Disposal of nuclear waste is currently impossible. It can only be sequestered. Long-term storage (on the scales of the half-life of the nuclear waste) of a highly caustic substance is currently impossible. Do a search on "Hanford nuclear waste site" for an example of a disaster slowly unfolding in Washington state. This however, is High-Level Waste, and folks who fear long-term storage issues think power plant waste is the same thing. They're uneducated, and ignorance breeds fear and anger.

>> No.9673420

>>9667462
Because uranium ore emits radon gas, uranium mining can be more dangerous than other underground mining, unless adequate ventilation systems are installed. During the 1950s, many Navajos in the U.S. became uranium miners, as many uranium deposits were discovered on Navajo reservations. A statistically significant subset of these early miners later developed small cell carcinoma after exposure to uranium ore.[15] Radon-222, a natural decay product of uranium, has been shown to be the cancer-causing agent.[16] Some American survivors and their descendants have received compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act which was enacted in 1990, and as of 2016 continues to receive and award claims. Successful claimants have include uranium miners, mill workers and ore transporters.

Residues from processing of uranium ore can also be a source of Radon. Radon resulting from the high radium content in uncovered dumps and tailing ponds can be easily released into the atmosphere. [17]

Also possible is the contamination of ground water and surface water with uranium by leaching processes. In July 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the fourth edition of its guidelines for drinking-water quality. The drinkingwater guidance level for uranium was increased to 30 μg/L. This limit can be exceeded near mill tailings or mining sites. [18]

In January 2008 Areva was nominated for an Anti Oscar Award.[19] The French state-owned company mines uranium in northern Niger where mine workers are not informed about health risks, and analysis shows radioactive contamination of air, water and soil. The local organization that represents the mine workers, spoke of "suspicious deaths among the workers, caused by radioactive dust and contaminated groundwater."[20]

>> No.9673438

>>9670550
Communism can work if you exclude burgerland from the equation.

>> No.9673458

>>9673410
>1) Becasue when something goes wrong with nuclear, it goes very horribly wrong and the effects last for decades. (Chernobyl and Fukushima e.g.).
This is a non sequitur, fossil fuels have much worse effects that are not even due to preventable accidents.

>Disposal of nuclear waste is currently impossible. It can only be sequestered. Long-term storage (on the scales of the half-life of the nuclear waste) of a highly caustic substance is currently impossible.
It's only politically impossible, because people like you spread misinformation around. The US government was creating a facility that could hold all our nuclear waste indefinitely, but it's now in political limbo. This argument is just a self fulfilling project: we can't store nuclear waste because we don't eat it to be stored, and we don't eat it to be stored because we can't store it. This dishonest rhetorical tactic really pisses me off.

>> No.9673476

>>9673420
So?

>> No.9675309

>>9670373
Again, I point out that coal kills more people every day through premature deaths from airborne particulate pollution than have ever died from radiation release from nuclear power plant accidents and nuclear power plant waste. Your perspective and standards are horribly skewed. Replacing a single coal power plant with a nuclear power plant saves thousands or more lives over the lifetime of the plant. We should be replacing coal with nuclear as fast as we can, on just this point alone.

>> No.9675312

>>9670877
Your absolutely wrong about the death toll over time. Radiation is not magic, and as it becomes dilute, it becomes actually harmless. The claim " any amount of radiation, no matter how small" is flatly wrong.

You have some concern about the farmland. However, now compare that to global warming, and get back to me.

>> No.9675315

>>9673410
>2) Disposal of nuclear waste is currently impossible.
This is the best part about nuclear power. Because the waste is so small in volume, we can actually dispose of it properly. Unlike other forms of energy production, like the airborne emissions of coal and nat gas, or the miles and miles of coal ash that we kind-of just leave there.

Radiation is not infinitely harmful. No one is going to die from the radiation release from Fukushima. Get a grip, and stop listening to the pseudo-science fearmongering of Green Peace et al.

>> No.9676068

>>9667991
>nuclear energy is heavily controlled by the us gov
No it isnt? Many other nations have had / continue to have nuclear energy bases using their own designs, industry standards, oversight systems, and public relations.

>> No.9676070

>>9675315
>Radiation is not infinitely harmful.
on the time scale of human civilizations it might as well be

>> No.9676078

>>9669013
Stop posting in this thread and go educate yourself on nuclear energy and engineering

>> No.9676083

>>9670557
This is true facts but amerishit culture has gone too far where a lot of people think there is no floor to what a human being deserves

>> No.9676087

>>9670877
No it doesnt, you are retarded. There are so many points that make this assertion untrue that It would take me 30k words to hit them all, you need to stop forming your opinions off of intuition and start reading relevant material.

>> No.9676102

>>9676070
Jesus christ you are so retarded it beggars belief, will it take thousands of years for a given piece of material to completely "cool"? Yes. Is that same piece relatively safe after a very short time period ( sometimes a few years to decades)? Yes. The long term danger to human society from nuclear waste isnt that it is so radioactive its going to destroy the envrionment, its a legacy issue where if we forget about it exists its possible to cause logistical problems in the future.

>> No.9676109

>>9670531
>when a nuclear reactor melts down, it explodes like a bomb.
Well, that's a distinct possibility. It's not a nuclear explosion, but there is a lot of heat and a lot of water in a sealed pressure vessel. Perfect conditions for an explosion.

>> No.9676118

>>9676102
just because a good chunk of the isotopes have decayed in a couple decades doesn't mean we should automatically accept having a huge store of very long lived isotopes just sitting around. we should at least consider the possibility of releases and accidents when we're talking about toxic isotopes that will be around for millenia

>> No.9676123

>>9667462
They have been told that it is more harmful than it is by people whose livelihoods would be destroyed by cheap and (mostly) clean power.

>> No.9676144

>>9676118
You know what most waste is? It's not reaction products or spent fuel. Most waste is tools or reactor parts that have been irradiated.

>> No.9676157

>>9676144
yes, i do. and it's the contaminated material that have some of the longer shelf lives

>> No.9676242

>>9667462
communists want to weaken America.

>> No.9677079

>>9676118
>>9676157
True, my principal point is that it is critical to be completely clear when describing waste legacy issues and the actual amount of threat to public safety they represent because normies are so dumb that they think its like a doomsday event if there is any kind of leakage into the surrounding environment

>> No.9677123

>>9667462
>Why are normies so afraid of nuclear power?

Negative PR from competing energy industries.

>> No.9677211

op there are many reasons people are afraid or against nuclear power or power plants (sure kiddo you like nuke your neighbours all the time, but consider this):

Cold war, possible leading a WWIII starts with Nuclear or H-bombs.

The other reason is Chernobyl, nowbody wants that happens again.

The consequences after Hiroshima & Nagazaki, too many suffered with radioactive poisoning, mutations, cancer, etc.

>> No.9677461

>>9667467
normies don't like uranium-235 flavored vape

>> No.9677488

>>9667462
"Normies" are right to be afraid. In the event of an conflict, all power plants are targets.

>> No.9677489

>>9667462
>afraid

wtf do you think it is? some magic to fix everything?

look at the power generation
what do you see?

STEAM ENGINE TECHNOLOGY

literally 1800s cutting-edge iron-horse magick with 1900s DC generator hooked up in the back

they take perfectly good radioactive materials, and just USE THE HEAT like a bunch of retarded cavemen

that's your nuclear power
get it all fancy and small and it goes on a satellite or probe, good for decades

>afraid

ground-based nuke plants are run by greedy fucks who only do safety stuff because they are forced to follow the regs, not because they care about your dumb ass
they will gladly poison the fuck out of you and anyone
they don't fucking care
they'll build a plant next to the ocean and not even make it tsunami or earthquake proof

oops too bad now the cesium is spreading throughout the whole pacific ocean

why aren't you giving a crap about safety?
>normies
you are retarded

>> No.9677561

>>9667462
What's there to like?

>> No.9677642

>>9676118
Industrial processes create toxic waste all of the time, and I don't see you demanding the same ridiculous disposal standards. Why the double standards for nuclear?

>> No.9677713

Because bitches dont know bout Recilisib.

>> No.9677816

>>9668003
Your shits are gonna be rock hard.

>> No.9677830

>>9676083
There isn't.

>> No.9678030

>>9667998
all ionizing radiation, no matter how small, increases the likelyhood of cancer by some small value. I mean, anything that causes damage or increased cell division increases the likelyhood of cancer.

so, what's "safe"?
it's the same kind of reasoning you can apply to the operation of automobiles. when is driving a car "safe"?

>> No.9678611

>>9673420
Literally not a single thing you just said is at all relevant to nuclear energy production

>> No.9678615

>>9673438
Literally every communist country on the planet is a complete shithole, and not a single one has made it longer than a century.

>> No.9678627

>>9677489
You sound like a fucking lunatic, and you're a stupid one to boot. There is not a dangerous amount of cesium in the Pacific from Fukushima, and the plant was designed to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis, WHICH IT DID. The problem with Fukushima was that the tidal wave damaged the diesel generators at the plant, not the reactor itself.

This entire post just proved that you are a normie and you are very afraid of things you don't understand

>> No.9679190

>>9678030
>all ionizing radiation, no matter how small, increases the likelyhood of cancer by some small value.
False. Learn some biology. Also look at the mit mice / rats experiment and Cohen's radon study.

>> No.9679462

>>9677489
this line alone betrays your total lack of education on the electroweak force
>oops too bad now the cesium is spreading throughout the whole pacific ocean

>> No.9680390

>>9670373
This post makes a lot of sense. Also I would add that a history of consistent cost overruns is a major problem for such a capital cost intensive industry. I would say defending nuclear to the public is not possible without strong regulations/ agencies that don't fall victim to regulatory capture

>> No.9680407

>>9680390
Why the asinine focus on safety and the double standard? The existing safety is good enough. It's already the safest and cleanest form of power generation.

>> No.9680443

>>9679190
That is ionising radiation.

>> No.9680483

>>9667976

>Living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant a year

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24484365

Gee, maybe we are not going to die after all.

>> No.9680505

>>9669013
> breathing in freely shitted-out coal waste that outright end up killing some people will not have negative effects on the people that don't die
Lmao

>> No.9680509

>>9667462
>Why are normies so afraid of nuclear power?

The same reason normies are so afraid of islam. It's a terrible idea and shaming them into submission won't work.

>> No.9680919

>>9680509
t. biblebelt anon