Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not saying you're not worried, or trying to pull one of those "but this is worse, so you must only worry about it!" things. I'm just saying that you don't need to "solve" the problem, as demonstrated by how we deal with other toxic waste. Yeah, chucking it in a landfill and calling it good isn't ideal, but it's not terrible if your landfill is reasonably well designed. Nuclear waste is a problem, but not a big one, and not big enough that the continued use of nuclear power should be gated on some sort of definitive solution.


How do I answer people who say that kind of thinking is what led to the fucking mess that is Sellafield?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31725365

Behind schedule and over budget is totally normal of UK big projects. But still, £58bn is a lot of money to fix something that's not a big problem.


Much of that high cost is because the waste is treated so delicately, while equally deadly non-nuclear waste is treated with much less care.

I imagine there have been a lot of places in your country (as with any industrialized country) that have been horribly contaminated with non-nuclear pollution, then cleaned up. While these events can certainly be used as an argument for taking more care, they're almost never used as an argument to give up on the whole idea of industry.

Nuclear waste is bad, but it doesn't seem to be on the level of "we must lock this up so securely that God Himself cannot access it" as people seem to try for.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: