Germany Looking for Nuclear Graveyard to last One Million Years.

[Loren Pechtel]

We need to call it out when people use anti-science to promote their faulty ideas on whatever side of the political spectrum it comes from.

Amen to THAT! It's just that ... well ...

Ohio bill orders doctors to ‘reimplant ectopic pregnancy’ or face 'abortion murder' charges

OMFG

Recent years have gotten me to thinking we need a new crime: Attempting to legislate the impossible. Introducing a bill or voting for a bill that calls for something clearly impossible should get a short jail sentence and not allowed to ever hold elected office or a government policymaking position. Note that this would not apply to attempts to develop technologies that do not yet exist--it's not a crime to propose a measure to offer $10 billion for a broad-spectrum vaccine against the common cold.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's misleading. Yes, nuclear plants during normal operation leak much less radioactivity than coal plants. keywords here are "normal operation" and "leak", cause amount of radioactive waste (not leak) is obviously orders and orders magnitude higher for nukes.

Sure; But as spent nuclear fuel never leaks

Great, tell that to Germans and Japanese.

Where do we have an example of a German leak?

And note that Japan involved spent fuel pools--recent stuff still too hot to be put in long term storage. Bilby is talking about stuff that's cooled enough it can be put in a passive storage container.

 

[barbos]

That's misleading. Yes, nuclear plants during normal operation leak much less radioactivity than coal plants. keywords here are "normal operation" and "leak", cause amount of radioactive waste (not leak) is obviously orders and orders magnitude higher for nukes.

Note, however, that coal plant emissions kill far more than nuke plant emissions even when you count accidents.

Also, an interesting bit regarding the waste.

You have x watts of nuke plant and x watts of coal plant. The waste from the nuke plant is reprocessed so only the useless stuff goes in the waste stream.

At the end of the year you prepare two storage vaults of the same size. One will hold the ash from the coal plants, one will hold the waste from the reactor. Next year, you have a new supply of waste--and you need to prepare another vault for the coal ash. The nuke waste fits in the original, though. Rinse and repeat. 10,000 years from now you have 10,000 vaults for the coal ash, but still only one vault for the nuke waste--and when you're depositing the waste for year 10,001 you pull out the waste from year 1 because it's now no longer any more radioactive than the environment. The coal ash is just as dangerous as it was the year it was put there, however. A million years from now you have a million vaults for the coal ash--but still only one for the nuke as you've removed 99% of it as the years went by.

Dude, I have PhD in physics, no need for this manspaining, especially when you are wrong.
Coal Ash is only dangerous when it gets into the air, flies away, and precipitates somewhere where food is grown or water is collected. Ash is essentially very finely milled stone and its radioactivity is equal that of stone, problem is with the fact that it's in the form of fine particles which leach into environment.
Buried ash is not really dangerous but you have to capture it first, It's possible to capture it and I am not sure nukes would win in this case.

Radioactivity of concentrated nuclear waste will not fall to the ambient level for millions and millions of years, so your math about amount of space is wrong too. You either have to dilute it in some inert and stable substance and use a lot of space, or you can keep it in concentrated form but make sure nobody disturbs it for millions of years. Germans are not wrong.

 

[barbos]

Great, tell that to Germans and Japanese.

Where do we have an example of a German leak?

I am glad you agree that Japan did have a leak
As for germans, read the OP, they for some weird reason are busy with storing nuclear waste. So go and tell them it's not a problem at all.

 

[bilby]

That's misleading. Yes, nuclear plants during normal operation leak much less radioactivity than coal plants. keywords here are "normal operation" and "leak", cause amount of radioactive waste (not leak) is obviously orders and orders magnitude higher for nukes.

Sure; But as spent nuclear fuel never leaks

Great, tell that to Germans and Japanese.

When has spent fuel ever caused harm to anyone?

The Germans and Japanese are not fucking interested in hearing it, but it's true - spent fuel from nuclear power stations hasn't harmed a single person in the sixty five year history of the technology.

Nuclear power is the only technology for generating electricity that completely and diligently manages its waste streams, to the point where these materials have never caused harm to any person or external environment. No other technology for generating electricity comes close to being as effective in managing its wastes safely - and most don't even bother trying, or make the most cursory of efforts with no long-term plans or considerations.

 

[bilby]

Well A utility passed bill passed the legislature setting up WPPSS to build three nuclear power plants at Hanford and two more plants at Satsop in the early seventies.

So much for military. How about we just say that all nuclear power companies are a bit stupid when it comes to maintenance and disposal issues. Take your fuck alls and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

How about we don't say that, thereby avoiding defaming the most exemplary waste management in history?

On top of all your misinformation Hanford was a prime site for storing nuclear waste from all over the country for both military and power producers.

No. You don't have to salute as your ship goes down. again.

How much German waste is at Hanford?

Stay on topic, or reveal that your opposition is groundless. If you can't find an on-topic criticism, then you've got nothing. Again.

 

[bilby]

Great, tell that to Germans and Japanese.

Where do we have an example of a German leak?

And note that Japan involved spent fuel pools--recent stuff still too hot to be put in long term storage. Bilby is talking about stuff that's cooled enough it can be put in a passive storage container.

Note also that nobody was hurt by the spent fuel in Japan.

The only injuries to anyone at Fukushima Daiichi were two workers who got minor beta burn from wading through spilled cooling water. Neither spent more than 48 hours in hospital; neither has any ongoing health problems.

The spent fuel moved around a bit. But didn't hurt anyone.

 

[fromderinside]

Stay on topic, or reveal that your opposition is groundless. If you can't find an on-topic criticism, then you've got nothing. Again.

Wow. Aren't you touchy. I wonder whether International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...national-nuclear-waste-disposal-concepts.aspx has anything todowith your touchiness.

• There have been several proposal for regional and international repositories for disposal of high-level nuclear wastes, and in 2003 the concept received strong endorsement from the head of IAEA.
• The European Commission is funding studies to to assess the feasibility of European regional waste repositories.
• Arising from these studies, 14 EU countries resolved to set up a European Repository Development Organisation (ERDO) to collaborate on nuclear waste disposal.
• Following this a similar initiative is under way for the Middle East and North Africa, and South East Asia is likely to follow.
• Pangea Resources earlier identified a large area of outback Australia as having appropriate characteristics for deep geological disposal, and hence for an international repository.
• In May 2016 a high-level commission in South Australia recommended establishment of an international repository there.

So not only do you have the oldest ancestral progenitor of humans in the world, the oldest rock in the world, but now the most convenient nuclear waste depository site in the world.

You don't think Australia's relations in trade with China have anything to do with that do you? Maybreven your best mates from 'Merica will come asking to go a-nuclear waste waltzing with Matilda.

Traitors.

Traitors I say.

 

[bilby]

Stay on topic, or reveal that your opposition is groundless. If you can't find an on-topic criticism, then you've got nothing. Again.

Wow. Aren't you touchy. I wonder whether International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...national-nuclear-waste-disposal-concepts.aspx has anything todowith your touchiness.

• There have been several proposal for regional and international repositories for disposal of high-level nuclear wastes, and in 2003 the concept received strong endorsement from the head of IAEA.
• The European Commission is funding studies to to assess the feasibility of European regional waste repositories.
• Arising from these studies, 14 EU countries resolved to set up a European Repository Development Organisation (ERDO) to collaborate on nuclear waste disposal.
• Following this a similar initiative is under way for the Middle East and North Africa, and South East Asia is likely to follow.
• Pangea Resources earlier identified a large area of outback Australia as having appropriate characteristics for deep geological disposal, and hence for an international repository.
• In May 2016 a high-level commission in South Australia recommended establishment of an international repository there.

So not only do you have the oldest ancestral progenitor of humans in the world, the oldest rock in the world, but now the most convenient nuclear waste depository site in the world.

Traitors.

Traitors I say.

What the fuck are you rambling on about?

There's exactly zero information there that is either news to me, or relevant to the question at hand.

If people are dumb enough to pay Australia to take their valuable partly used nuclear fuel, then as an Australian I would certainly welcome that. But it's a dumb thing to do. Spent PWR fuel is an excellent feedstock for molten salt reactors, and that's what the long term use for this material should be. In the meantime, it's best stored in dry casks, where it's easily accessible when we want it.

 

[fromderinside]

Please note the 14 EU bit in the bullet list. Germany happens to be one of those 14. Sheesh. So what's up with China and Australia anyway. Maybe Germany could store their waste in Andorra or Monaco or Greece home of Pandora's box.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Stay on topic, or reveal that your opposition is groundless. If you can't find an on-topic criticism, then you've got nothing. Again.

Wow. Aren't you touchy. I wonder whether International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...national-nuclear-waste-disposal-concepts.aspx has anything todowith your touchiness.

• There have been several proposal for regional and international repositories for disposal of high-level nuclear wastes, and in 2003 the concept received strong endorsement from the head of IAEA.
• The European Commission is funding studies to to assess the feasibility of European regional waste repositories.
• Arising from these studies, 14 EU countries resolved to set up a European Repository Development Organisation (ERDO) to collaborate on nuclear waste disposal.
• Following this a similar initiative is under way for the Middle East and North Africa, and South East Asia is likely to follow.
• Pangea Resources earlier identified a large area of outback Australia as having appropriate characteristics for deep geological disposal, and hence for an international repository.
• In May 2016 a high-level commission in South Australia recommended establishment of an international repository there.

So not only do you have the oldest ancestral progenitor of humans in the world, the oldest rock in the world, but now the most convenient nuclear waste depository site in the world.

You don't think Australia's relations in trade with China have anything to do with that do you? Maybreven your best mates from 'Merica will come asking to go a-nuclear waste waltzing with Matilda.

Traitors.

Traitors I say.

I understand why Bilby is frustrated. Without nuclear power, we're probably fucked. It's the bridge technology that can get us to the estimated 30 years from now when technology will be advanced enough to provide us with truly low cost, reliable and clean energy. Today nuclear energy is clean, reliable, extremely safe, and provides high paying jobs. And yet it is going down in flames due to superstition and fear.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The one characteristic that sets nuclear waste apart from all other industrial wastes is that nuclear waste is contained and managed to prevent all possible harm to humans or the environment. No other waste stream is treated in this way.

I'd say this might be one of the more concrete examples of first world contamination hypocrisies that are out there.

I will note, in America, nuclear power generation is still a bit of a problem because it seems our power generation companies can't do much right. Yes, there have been limited three mile island like events... such as that is about it... but the level of regulation is through the roof and there are still incidents were power plants are habitually being fined for violations. The US can't have nice things.

If the US were to launch a wave of new nuclear plants, there is no untold amount of malfeasance, incompetence, and utter stupidity to would follow suit caused by government incompetence, corporate indifference, and citizen ignorance.

Fukashima seemed to be more of a lesson regarding redundancy is backups than anything else. It was a clusterfuck, but the clusterfuck was contained.

 

[fromderinside]

How can a clusterfuck located near a fault, on the coast be contained when there is still massive radioactive leakage being recorded from the site?

Personally I'm against nuclear power for declared reasons such as home experience, incident involvement, etc. I understand the rationality of arguments by pro nuck people for use of it. However, I'm convinced humans aren't rational. They're more like the gut people David Brooks talks about in his recent article in the Times, The Wisdom Your Body Knows https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/28/opinion/brain-body-thinking.html than they are as your's and bilby's arguments complain about. Humans are fearful beings, not because they threaten everything - they do - but, because they are irrationally afraid of everything.

Zeitgeist alert: Tribalists are in ascendency. Be afraid, be very afraid. Pray some charismatic idiot comes forth and leads mocking fear of others.

We're not going to have a good discussion until discussants get over talking about anything in terms beyond lunch. For those who claim one million this or that I reply doomsday. Guess who will win that argument.

We're so messed up that scientists are still paring approach with avoidance.

 

[Elixir]

I take it by "evolutionary biology" you mean "people evolved from animals".

I take it from that question that you are entirely ignorant of both the process of evolution and the theory that describes that process. People ARE animals. Get over it.

As for the "science denial" of right wingers - maybe it is a necessity, not only to preserve certain superstitions with which they were raised, but also to enable them to accept the unbelievable from their leaders.

Scientists Are Trying to Figure Out Why People Are OK with Trump’s Endless Supply of Lies

Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon

It keeps coming back to Germans in the 1920s-30s. Their disaffection with the status quo, their willingness to accept falsehoods from their leader, the eagerness with which they attacked the designated "enemy", and the blind eye they turned to atrocities committed in their name - all of it is a manifestation of certain aspects of human behavior that once served up an evolutionary advantage, when tribes numbered in the hundreds or thousands rather than hundreds of millions.
The long view almost certainly entails an end for this cycle of xenophobic violence that will resemble what happened to Germany in the 1940s, and there will be many a trumpanzee standing around perplexed by how horribly it all played out.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Coal plants release far more radioactivity than nuclear plants. That doesn't say coal ash is more radioactive than spent fuel. It's the coal ash gets loose, the spent fuel is almost always properly contained.

Among urban farmers there is the saying, "The solution to pollution is dilution." Urban farmers are typically farming abandoned sites that have been contaminated with leaded gasoline, paints, insecticides, pesticides, petrochemicals, etc. Lead in the soil is the number one concern these days. Some municipalities have laws that prohibit the working of soil that is too high in lead. That urban soils are also typically alkaline helps keep the lead bound, at least that's my understanding.

But the soils can still be farmed if amending the soil lowers the lead concentration to acceptable levels. This seems asinine at best but the problem is that lead exposure occurs from exposure to the soil, not exposure to the plants growing in the soil, as the plants don't take up the lead.

When a local steel mill was demolishing older structures to make way for wide strip technology, helicopters were constantly sniffing the air, particularly downwind, for asbestos, chrome, lead and other pollutants. Concentrated exposure to any of these things is just as harmful as to radiation. At a nearby superfund site that has been capped the water is constantly monitored and treated before release into the river.

The concentration of radiation at nuclear facilities is the issue, not the radiation itself. Kilowatt for kilowatt, nuclear power is less radioactive than coal in terms of pollution and danger to the environment. The reason for government's heavy hand is because that radiation is so concentrated, not because radiation is something uncommon or special. This is true in lots of cases, not just for radiation.

The long view almost certainly entails an end for this cycle of xenophobic violence that will resemble what happened to Germany in the 1940s, and there will be many a trumpanzee standing around perplexed by how horribly it all played out.

Some people will never question their motives or behavior, only delegate blame for the consequences, forever holding firm to the justness of their actions. It's why humans fight I suppose. Interestingly, humans have been fighting less and less over the centuries, the violence curve is clearly descending, unbelievable as that may sound.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I love how the measure is always against the other things that are toxic. It's no more dangerous than a bullet to the brain. Oh, ok. Well great then!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I take it from that question that you are entirely ignorant of both the process of evolution and the theory that describes that process.

Your conclusion is false (as it should be obvious if you take a look at some of his posts on the matters), but the main problem is that it is not warranted: You should not have that belief on the basis of the information available to you. A person who says that may simply be using "animal" in a way different from the way you use it. Many people do that.

But his points of left-wing science denialism are spot on, and you're ignoring them. In the particular case of nuclear energy (and Germany's absurd policies), the problem seems to be left-wing science denialism, much more than right-wing science denialism.

 

[Elixir]

I take it from that question that you are entirely ignorant of both the process of evolution and the theory that describes that process.

Your conclusion is false

OK. You are well-studied in evolutionary theory and the evidence of precursors to HSS. Not sure how you know the same about B20, to whom I was replying.though. I take it that you simply choose to ignore/deny it. I hate to say it, but ... case in point re conservatives rejecting science.

 

[ronburgundy]

That's not a good reason to doubt it. Accepting the conclusions of science and understanding science are two entirely different things. The left is quite well stocked with people who accept global warming and evolution because they've been told to but would flunk a college science class. If you examine the statistics on political affiliation in academia, you'll find the chance of a professor being on the political right goes way up in the STEM fields.

Actual scientists are 6 times more likely to be Democrats than Republicans, and 6 times more likely to label themselves as "liberal" than "conservatives.

You can find some more conservatives and Republicans if you go outside of science into Math, Engineering, and medical practitioners (which use or relate to areas in science but are not scientific fields). However, even there they are still a minority and they comprise the portions of people in those in those fields who dangerously are ignorant of most science and science in favor of theistic religion.

Granted, the % of liberal Democrats in the sciences is lower than in the Humanities (but still a majority). But that b/c there are more scientists who are "independent" or "moderates", not b/c they are Republican or conservative.

Denial of climate science and evolutionary biology are almost the exclusive province of right wing extremism, so maybe the spread is more even in other scientific matters.

I take it by "evolutionary biology" you mean "people evolved from animals". The folks who attacked E. O. Wilson for explaining the evolutionary biology of psychological differences between the sexes were hardly right wing extremists, and they certainly qualify as evolutionary biology deniers.

Accepting the actual science of evolutionary biology does not entail or logically necessitate accepting speculations about the evolutionary source of specific gender differences. That humans evolved is a fact. That some behavioral differences between the sexes are part of evolved biology is a fact. However, most claims about specific behavioral sex-differences evolving for particular reasons are far from fact and more philosophical speculation than science, as is that general claim that the majority of sex differences in behavior are evolved.

Most of the resistance to sociobiology is resistance to the often unscientific claims made in its name that try to pretend their unsupported conclusions follow from Wilson's generally more modest assertions. Resistance to Wilson himself comes from a handful of people, some of whom, like Gould, were as much driven by self-aggrandizing fame-seeking, than political ideology. Since conservatives can and do pervert evolutionary psychology to support their non-scientific racism and misogyny, they have motive to "accept" it even though their distortions are as anti-science as what Wilson's harshest critics had to say.

And sex differences are merely one example of a lot of the left's broader rejection of the science in nature/nurture disputes in general, as Pinker documents in The Blank Slate.

There are some leftists who take an unscientific extreme stance in rejecting evidence for biologically based behavioral differences between sexes.
However, there are very few if any conservatives that accept the actual science of biologically-based contributions to human behavior. Those conservatives that don't deny human evolution completely, deliberately distort what the science actually tells us to support extremist, politically motivated, and unscientific claims that overstate what can be confidently attributed to biology and particular selection pressures. Among those who accept the actual scientifically supported complex interact of biology and experience, the vast majority are likely left of center.

 

[Elixir]

The long view almost certainly entails an end for this cycle of xenophobic violence that will resemble what happened to Germany in the 1940s, and there will be many a trumpanzee standing around perplexed by how horribly it all played out.

Some people will never question their motives or behavior, only delegate blame for the consequences, forever holding firm to the justness of their actions. It's why humans fight I suppose. Interestingly, humans have been fighting less and less over the centuries, the violence curve is clearly descending, unbelievable as that may sound.

Agreed, it does look like that, just that we're in the down part of the cycle right now. But if you (and I) are right, it really does portend unpleasant times to come for those who hang their hats on the righteousness of violence against "The Others".