Asklemmy

43940 readers

685 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

294

What is something that people think is dangerous but in reality is completely harmless? (lemmy.fmhy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by Datman2020@lemmy.fmhy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

385 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Political pressure comes in part from people like me who live around here and where they'd look for other sites. I don't want trucks full of nuclear waste constantly being trucked through my area (and your area!), I don't want to be viewed as a bomb target by enemies. I don't want trucks of nuclear waste around the country being viewed as dirty bomb targets.
Even without the political pressure, how is nuclear power clean when massive massive holes in the ground have to be created and maintained with huge trucks and cranes using fossil fuels so we have a place to store waste that will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years? Yucca Mountain has taken decades to approve and build, any other sites will likely also. Spent nuclear fuel having to be trucked across the country using fossil fuels and tires, at best can be converted to battery power.
Nuclear plants take a decade or more to build, we don't have that kind of time when it comes to climate change.
Nuclear power makes nuclear disarmament that much less likely
All of this is also assuming our current civilization continues for tens of thousands of years unbroken. If for some reason 500 years from now civilization broke down or was taken over and the average person couldn't read English anymore, how would we transmit the idea of everlasting danger in a geographic region to those who may see things very differently?

[–] NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Sorry I somehow just saw your response. Here's mine:

Nuclear waste being trucked through my area is completely fine because not only has it already been contained and simply being trucked to it's longterm storage site, it's not some glowing ooze that's super hard to keep from seeping into places. It's a solid. Have the trucks stay away from running water and don't drive on days that it's raining, and even if there's a crash it's not gonna get into the ecosystem. Add to that, the alternative for baseload power has been fossil fuels, which are shown to not only be more hazardous to the immediate area and people, but more hazardous to the planet. So the options for the past several decades has been between a verifiably bad thing, and a verifiably not bad thing. This is just more either uninformed or alarmist rhetoric.
A similar question can be turned around on solar, what with the huge amount of material that needs to be mined in toxic processes for the rare earth metals that are needed for photovoltaics + battery banks. And you're complaining about needing tires for moving nuclear waste? Really? The addition would be negligible compared to what's already on the roads. This is just grasping at straws.
We don't have that kind of time because people like you have been preventing us from building safe plants for decades. This is the same kind of energy as when republicans defund government agencies and then use the now lower productivity of the agency as an example of governments being bad at jobs. We've lost time because you've been holding our head underwater.
Realistic nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream that gets obliterated with 5 seconds of thought. The countries we truly want disarmed will never do such, and better countries disarming would just lead to those first countries becoming emboldened to use their arsenal. The only realistic result of nuclear disarmament is a nuclear war perpetrated by dictators.
If human civilization breaks down to the point that top security assets are unmanageable, there's far worse issues going on than nuclear waste getting into the ground water in a couple specific locations. Not to mention a scenario like you bring up would have to have humans falling back to the stone age, at which point the change in quality and length of life from the nuclear radiation a leak would bring wouldn't be very substantial compared to their stone-age alternative.