• Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Nuclear waste” sounds super scary, but most of it are things like tools and clothing, that have comparatively tiny amount of radioactivity. Sure it still needs to be stored properly, very little high level waste is actually generated.

    You know what else is catastrophic? Fossil fuels and the impact they have on the climate. I’m not arguing that we should put all our eggs in one basket, but getting started and doing something to move away from the BS that is coal, gas, and oil is really something we should’ve prioritised fifty years ago. Instead they have us arguing whether we should go with hydroelectric, or put up with “ugly windmills” or “solar farms” or “dangerous nuclear plants.”

    It’s all bullshit. Our world is literally on fire and no one seems to actually give a fuck. We have fantastic tools that could’ve halted the progress had we used them in time, but fifty years later we’re still arguing about this.

    At this point I honestly hope we do burn. This is a filter mankind does not deserve to pass. We’re too evil to survive.

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      We do have fantastic options, water, wind, and sun renewables. Let’s focus on them.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yea both are horrible. But we can get off fossil fuels and walk away. We can’t with nuclear. It’ll always be with us and doesn’t solve that we need fossil fuel for other things.

      Jets and ships are still going to need fossil fuels.

      Which is why I think the best thing we could be doing right now is focusing on improving how energy is store. With the right advancement we could solve a lot of these problems with the right battery.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, but doesn’t that just increase the nuclear waste storage issue if we turn all these vehicles nuclear powered

          • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not hugely. Actual nuclear waste, not just mildly radioactive uniforms and similar material, is extremely small and compact for the amount of energy generated.

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I would say though how much nuclear waste would be acceptable in an aquifer to be an issue. Its great that in relation to the energy produced, its small. But can that small amount still pose a catastrophic risk or not

      • OriginalUsername@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Mercury will always be with us. Arsenic will always be with us. PFAS will always be with us. Natural radiation will always be with us. Fortunately, nuclear waste is easily detectable, the regulations around it are much stronger, the amount of HLW is miniscule and the storage processes are incredibly advanced

        Moreover, most Nuclear waste won’t always be with us. A lot of fission prodcuts have half lives in the decades or centuries