Skeptics and nuclear power

[Craig B]

Why can't you look it up? It takes just a few seconds to google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Coal

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste

This literally took me less than a minute to search, check and copy-paste. Seriously, what's your excuse? Someone makes a claim that can't possibly be arcane or difficult to look up, and you just cross your arms and say "nope"?

I'll also remind you that I didn't say it was particularily radioactive. I'm pointing out that it IS radioactive, to show that nuclear waste is not unique in that regard. The toxicity of coal waste, however, was the main point I was making in that post, because these things _never_ stop being toxic.



No. Hopefully you don't think that my being not an expert in these matters somehow means you're right, because then I could throw in the fact that you don't know how the universe came into being as proof of God. Or Zeus.



How the hell can it possibly "look like" this since I've been very straightforward and clear with you? Is it simply because you're not getting the answers you want? All you've done in this exchange is be incredulous. In response to my post about coal waste radioactivity, instead of looking it up, you dredged up a link about pre-WWII ship steel. How twisted is that?

I didn't dredge up anything. The ship steel was intimately in contact with coal waste throughout many years, so you must necessarily understand what I brought its measured very low radioactivity level into the discussion. I asked a rational and relevant question. Nothing even remotely twisted about it. I didn't get "the answers I want", because I didn't get any answers except disparaging comments.

Now you are telling us that coal waste is radioactive, but not "particularly" radioactive, so I'm still at a loss as to how seriously you regard it as a radioactivity hazard, in comparison to the nuclear waste produced by fission power plants.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I didn't dredge up anything.

You might want to think about how that looks to other people. How many people know about WW I ships being a source of pristine steel? When I put "coal waste radioactive" WW I ships doesn't show up.

Now you are telling us that coal waste is radioactive, but not "particularly" radioactive, so I'm still at a loss as to how seriously you regard it as a radioactivity hazard, in comparison to the nuclear waste produced by fission power plants.

Neither one is a normally a radiation hazard at all. They both contribute negligible rates of radiation to the environment. I would expect that Chernobyl, and possibly Fukishima, is the exception in this regards (and coal also has it's "exceptions" but I doubt those involve radioactivity).

 

[Belz...]

I didn't dredge up anything.

You do know that by "dredge" I meant you dug up something, which you did.

The ship steel was intimately in contact with coal waste throughout many years, so you must necessarily understand what I brought its measured very low radioactivity level into the discussion.

Well I do now, but as noted by another poster there's no reason why it'd be particularily radioactive. Incidently, do you now understand that coal waste is ratioactive regardless?

I asked a rational and relevant question. Nothing even remotely twisted about it.

It's twisted in the sense that it was an odd way to avoid looking up the information. Hell, I didn't know it was radioactive until a couple of years ago. When I was told, I checked, and it turned out to be true. I didn't maintain my ignorance and demand that the other person explain how come steel from X and Y wasn't more radioactive.

I didn't get "the answers I want", because I didn't get any answers except disparaging comments.

That is NOT true. My responses were on point.

Now you are telling us that coal waste is radioactive, but not "particularly" radioactive

What do you mean "now"? I never said or implied that it was particularily radioactive. That's the point that I'm making: simply pointing out that it IS doesn't mean that it is A LOT.

so I'm still at a loss as to how seriously you regard it as a radioactivity hazard, in comparison to the nuclear waste produced by fission power plants.

Well, I'm at a loss too, because I never claimed or implied this. Here's the original post again:

On the other hand, coal waste, which is also radioactive, incidently, is toxic forever, and in much greater quantities for the same MWh.

You'll notice that the main point was its toxicity, since I explicitely said that its radioactivity was incidental. As I said before it was just pointing out in passing that coal waste also happens to be radioactive. You are adding content to my post that I didn't write, and then asking me to defend that!

 

[wobs]

Thank you.

I do quite agree that the "primary issues with long term management of nuclear waste are political and cultural, not technical".

However, I would like to point out that political and cultural issues are quite serious issues all the same.

Solving technical problems is often far easier than managing public opinion, but public opinion is what democracy is supposed to be about.

After all, just look at how long it took us to give up slavery, give women the right to vote, give Indians the right to vote, allow gay marriage, and so on.

So we agree that the disposal is not a technical issue. ok.

As for the political/cltural issue, I should point out that we weren't talking specifically about the US in this discussion, but about nuclear power as a whole. Yucca Mt was brought up of course, but I also mentioned Finland, Sweden and Canada as countries who have disposal sites either operational or in construction. This suggests that the political/cultural issues can in fact be overcome.

As you mentioned some other political/cultural issues, I'll point out that the women's vote took about 10 years to happen, and in the UK was held up by terrorism. In those days, it was quite a quick campaign for it time.

While some issues can take time, the timescales we are talking about for nuclear are quite long from a political point of view, as the spent fuel must stay on site for many years before you even need to think about disposal. And given that the reason for not using Yucca Mt was that they are thinking about reprocessing, it sggests that this is another reaosn to go ahead with it, as we can use this material rather than worry about where to put it.

How long it takes for a culture to change depends on many factors.

As for standardisation of plants: France did this when they went for nuclear in a big way, which is why they made it pay. I suspect the UK is about to do this as well, as we close the remaining coal plants. It can be done, in other words.