Patrick Moore is on the nuclear bandwagon.

sysyphus said:
Yes it would. The required technology already exists to contain nuclear waste for the enitrety of its life above normal background radiation levels.

Irish Caesar said:
Do you realize that the uranium used to generate electrical power in nuclear power plants will undergo the exact same decay chain and produce the exact same elements with the exact same half-lives whether we use it for power and then bury it or leave it buried?

We might as well get as much energy out of the uranium we have before it decays...
IglooDude said:
I think it is reasonable to assume there will be a fairly clean and easy solution for nuclear waste storage developed in the next thousand years, don't you?

Nuclear waste is around for hundreds of thousands of years. Theres no way of knowing what will be going on in the world 10,000 years from now. In all likelihood, our high tech civilization will have crashed. Storage places that today are desolate and empty might not be in a few thousand years. Why should babies 10,000 years from now be born with birth defects because some people in a long gone civ cared more about their needs in the present than they did the well being of future generations? If we arent going to care about the well being of our descendants, then what are we doing then? Whats the point of anything?
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Nuclear waste is around for hundreds of thousands of years. Theres no way of knowing what will be going on in the world 10,000 years from now. In all likelihood, our high tech civilization will have crashed. Storage places that today are desolate and empty might not be in a few thousand years. Why should babies 10,000 years from now be born with birth defects because some people in a long gone civ cared more about their needs in the present than they did the well being of future generations? If we arent going to care about the well being of our descendants, then what are we doing then? Whats the point of anything?

The nuclear waste that's been sitting inside this planet for 4.5 billion years hasn't seemed to hurt us too badly.
 
It's probably encouraged localise mutation and evolution.

Bozo, why should I care the least bit about some evolved rat giving birth to mutated babies in 10,000 years?
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Nuclear waste is around for hundreds of thousands of years. Theres no way of knowing what will be going on in the world 10,000 years from now. In all likelihood, our high tech civilization will have crashed. Storage places that today are desolate and empty might not be in a few thousand years. Why should babies 10,000 years from now be born with birth defects because some people in a long gone civ cared more about their needs in the present than they did the well being of future generations? If we arent going to care about the well being of our descendants, then what are we doing then? Whats the point of anything?

If it's a question of either producing the waste or not producing the waste, I'd go with not producing the waste. However, it's not a choice being made in a vacuum - either produce radioactive solid waste as pollution, or produce gases released into the atmosphere as pollution.

The latter does more harm to our children's future, IMHO, than the former does to our children's children's children's future.
 
El_Machinae said:
Bozo, why should I care the least bit about some evolved rat giving birth to mutated babies in 10,000 years?
Isnt it great that we had a chance because the Romans 2000 years ago didnt leave mountains of nuclear waste behind when their civilization dissapeared?
IglooDude said:
If it's a question of either producing the waste or not producing the waste, I'd go with not producing the waste. However, it's not a choice being made in a vacuum - either produce radioactive solid waste as pollution, or produce gases released into the atmosphere as pollution.

The latter does more harm to our children's future, IMHO, than the former does to our children's children's children's future.
Its a false choice. We dont have to pick either high C02 or nuclear waste.

Irish Caesar said:
After we use the fuel, the waste goes back inside.
First of all, nuclear waste is worse than raw uranium. Second, theres no place that we can put it that we know will be completely safe in the next ten twenty or thirty thousand years.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Isnt it great that we had a chance because the Romans 2000 years ago didnt leave mountains of nuclear waste behind when their civilization dissapeared?

You say that as thoguh they had a choice

Bozo Erectus said:
Its a false choice. We dont have to pick either high C02 or nuclear waste.

Right now, yes we do.

Bozo Erectus said:
First of all, nuclear waste is worse than raw uranium. Second, theres no place that we can put it that we know will be completely safe in the next ten twenty or thirty thousand years.

I don't know how many times you expect me to reiterate this but: THE CONTAINMENT TECHNOLOGY ALREADY EXISTS TO CONTAIN THE WASTE FOR ITS HARMFUL LIFE. BY THE TIME THE CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES WOULD BE NO LONGER VIABLE, THE WASTE WOULD BE EMITTING NEGLIGIBLE RADITATION
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Its a false choice. We dont have to pick either high C02 or nuclear waste.

What are the other options?
 
IglooDude said:
What are the other options?
Another option is to be rational, and manage change intelligently, instead of watching it approach, doing nothing, and then at the last minute settling for halfassed half measures that are even worse. Thirty years ago Jimmy Carter knew that we had to wean ourselves off of oil, and started programs which if they hadnt been shut down by Reagan, today we would be reaping the benefits from. Since we live in a 'just in time' society, we're counting on a 'just in time' solution. But there wont be one. The solution is to diversify as much as possible. Instead of pouring new billions into nuclear, that money should be spent on wind, solar, fuel cells etc. All of those and more. What makes more sense? To invest in energy sources that produce the most toxic substances the planet has ever seen, or energy sources that are clean?

@El, come on man, gimme a break. Nobody can be that self centered. Youre putting me on.

@Sysyphus, please. We dont know that those containers will last for hundreds of thousands of years. Its just happy talk to alleviate fears and encourage use of nuclear power. Anybody who claims to know the structural integrity of a man made object 20,000 years in the future, is either insane, a liar, or just doesnt know what he's talking about.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
@Sysyphus, please. We dont know that those containers will last for hundreds of thousands of years. Its just happy talk to alleviate fears and encourage use of nuclear power. Anybody who claims to know the structural integrity of a man made object 20,000 years in the future, is either insane, a liar, or just doesnt know what he's talking about.

They don't need to last that long, just becuase the material will still be radioactive for 100s of thousands of years doesn't mean it needs to be contained that long. Radioactive decay is exponential, the radio activity of the waste will reduce to insignificant levels after the first 100 years. Insignificant meaningless than your television.

Seriously, if you want to contest the use of nuclear power you really should learn something about it beyond what you've seen on the Simpsons.
 
OMG, it is you who should learn something mate. Radiactive decay is exponential respect to time, becuase time is in the exponent of the equation, but the exponent is negative. So this means that radioactivity decreases more slowly with time. So lets consider an isotope with an halflife of only 100 years: After 100 years his radioactivity will be a 50% the original one, after another 100 years it will be a 25%, after another 100 year 12,5%... so if some nuclear waste formed mainly by this nucleoid is originally only 50 times more radioactive that the acceptable level, you will need about 600 years to obtain an (in theory) safe material.
All this being optimistic and supposing that the next nucleoid in the decay chain is stable. Probably it will be another radiactive one with his own decay rate.

Now apply this to high level nuclear waste produced in nuclear centrals, much more dangerous that the above example, with halflifes of thousand or millions of years and you will have an idea of how long nuclear waste will remain dangerous.

Ostrich policy. :thumbdown:
 
@El, come on man, gimme a break. Nobody can be that self centered. Youre putting me on

*I'm* certainly not, since I plan on it being my problem. I'm just asking why someone should care, if they're going to be dead. What so valuable about some future person's wellbeing?
 
sysyphus said:
Seriously, if you want to contest the use of nuclear power you really should learn something about it beyond what you've seen on the Simpsons.
There are people on both sides of the issue who know much more than either you or me about nuclear power. Either youre comfortable with leaving nuclear waste for your greatgrandkids to deal with, or you arent.

@Thorg:clap:

El, future generations can go dog paddling up to their chins in your toxic waste for all you care, as long as your needs are today are met. Ok. I dont think anything I can say here will change that. But Im sure these views of yours will evolve over time.
 
El, how could you not understand why someone would care about future inhabitants of this planet? Its not ours, we're just caretakers.
 
1) There is only a suspicion that someone will inherit the problem
2) Why do future people have a higher moral priority than me, or other current people?

(Actually, I agree that we have a moral duty to future people that we have expectation of existing. I don't put them as more important than a current person though.)
 
El_Machinae said:
1) There is only a suspicion that someone will inherit the problem
Only a suspicion? What is it about the halflife of nuclear materials that remains only a suspicion?
2) Why do future people have a higher moral priority than me, or other current people?
They dont, but by the same token, we dont have a higher moral priority than they do. Why should hundreds of generations of future people suffer harm because of our waste products? Isnt it more ethical for generations to deal with their own waste, instead of leaving it for unborn people who arent around today to stop us?
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Only a suspicion? What is it about the halflife of nuclear materials that remains only a suspicion?

They dont, but by the same token, we dont have a higher moral priority than they do. Why should hundreds of generations of future people suffer harm because of our waste products? Isnt it more ethical for generations to deal with their own waste, instead of leaving it for unborn people who arent around today to stop us?

Why should they benefit from our progress, then? We should drop any sort of research that isn't likely to produce benefits in the next twenty years and focus on immediately-exploitable technologies, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom