It’s been said but needs repeating: this is the most important story of the last month, maybe six months outside the Russian invasion if ukraine. Side note to fans of fission power: you want...
It’s been said but needs repeating: this is the most important story of the last month, maybe six months outside the Russian invasion if ukraine.
Side note to fans of fission power: you want nuclear waste traveling under these conditions?
If your comment is mainly about the deregulation of hazardous rail transport, that doesn't seem like a good reason to direct criticism at nuclear advocates. It should be pointed squarely at the...
Exemplary
Side note to fans of fission power: you want nuclear waste traveling under these conditions?
If your comment is mainly about the deregulation of hazardous rail transport, that doesn't seem like a good reason to direct criticism at nuclear advocates. It should be pointed squarely at the rail lobbyists and the federal government.
Given my current understanding of how nuclear material is currently being handled it doesn't really present the same kind of risk. Namely, most of it doesn't move, it sits quietly on-site near the reactor for 10+ years until the hottest stuff decays. Even then, if it were to be transported, the waste is large cylinders of metal and concrete. Even in a catastrophic accident like this one, all of the radioactive material is solid and will remain solid while it gets cleaned up. There's some risk of groundwater contamination if it were to crash into a body of water, but it's still far far less damaging (IMO) than the chemicals that got sloshed all over and then burned.
If only there was a way to see this disaster coming.
It’s been said but needs repeating: this is the most important story of the last month, maybe six months outside the Russian invasion if ukraine.
Side note to fans of fission power: you want nuclear waste traveling under these conditions?
If your comment is mainly about the deregulation of hazardous rail transport, that doesn't seem like a good reason to direct criticism at nuclear advocates. It should be pointed squarely at the rail lobbyists and the federal government.
Given my current understanding of how nuclear material is currently being handled it doesn't really present the same kind of risk. Namely, most of it doesn't move, it sits quietly on-site near the reactor for 10+ years until the hottest stuff decays. Even then, if it were to be transported, the waste is large cylinders of metal and concrete. Even in a catastrophic accident like this one, all of the radioactive material is solid and will remain solid while it gets cleaned up. There's some risk of groundwater contamination if it were to crash into a body of water, but it's still far far less damaging (IMO) than the chemicals that got sloshed all over and then burned.