Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I’m sure their employer/customer was happy.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.
If you’ll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you’ll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg…
Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don’t bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.
…
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
No, it’s just a couple of statistics. It’s better than the other piece but that’s a low bar.
Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
…
did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn’t bring anything to the table.
Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
Straw man again, really?
This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
I’m only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn’t work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can’t even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.
Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.
Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.
Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?
You were done for before you started. Your sole way of ‘winning’ for your precious, precious nuclear fission is bringing up fossil fuels to steer the discussion away from renewables.
You’ve proven again and again that you only read headlines that you understand only partially. Your impotent ranting against ‘my definition’ of toxicity was especially entertaining.
The constant bad of your person culminates in claiming that I said that fissionable material good for only a short time which is a short 230 years. I did not. You constantly misinterpret and misrepresent facts. This can’t be blamed on your reading capabilities alone.
Again. At present consumption level fissionable material lasts about 230 years. That’s a massive amount of time and would make fission an option as risks and cost involved are outweighed by the benefits.
Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10.
Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:
230/10=23; 230/20=11,5
Result: fissionable material lasts 11,5 to 23 your if we followed your masters’ advice. Is very simple maths I’m sure you can follow.
I could now try to explain as to how long it takes to get a reactor on the net and how it would be active to short to make a dent. You’ll either not understand it or misquote it again.
Next you again throw another bunch of shit on the wall: technology we don’t have yet (fusion, thorium, etc). We might be able to build reactors using that hopefully within the next decade. Right know we don’t and we don’t know when we can. Shit didn’t stick, sorry.
Does the fission lobby pay you well for your service?
Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:
What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.
Your argument fell apart, can’t be always right.
Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.
Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don’t bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.
No, it’s just a couple of statistics. It’s better than the other piece but that’s a low bar.
Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn’t bring anything to the table.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?
Straw man again, really?
I’m only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.
No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn’t work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.
Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can’t even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.
Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.
Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.
Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?
You were done for before you started. Your sole way of ‘winning’ for your precious, precious nuclear fission is bringing up fossil fuels to steer the discussion away from renewables.
You’ve proven again and again that you only read headlines that you understand only partially. Your impotent ranting against ‘my definition’ of toxicity was especially entertaining.
The constant bad of your person culminates in claiming that I said that fissionable material good for only a short time which is a short 230 years. I did not. You constantly misinterpret and misrepresent facts. This can’t be blamed on your reading capabilities alone.
Again. At present consumption level fissionable material lasts about 230 years. That’s a massive amount of time and would make fission an option as risks and cost involved are outweighed by the benefits.
Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:
230/10=23; 230/20=11,5
Result: fissionable material lasts 11,5 to 23 your if we followed your masters’ advice. Is very simple maths I’m sure you can follow.
I could now try to explain as to how long it takes to get a reactor on the net and how it would be active to short to make a dent. You’ll either not understand it or misquote it again.
Next you again throw another bunch of shit on the wall: technology we don’t have yet (fusion, thorium, etc). We might be able to build reactors using that hopefully within the next decade. Right know we don’t and we don’t know when we can. Shit didn’t stick, sorry.
Does the fission lobby pay you well for your service?
What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.
Your argument fell apart, can’t be always right. Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.