Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Onlyhestands]

My understanding was that Nuclear power created waste that while we cant currently destroy it, we can store in barrels. However it is clean besides that.

[Yanlin]

Those barrels wont last long enough for the waste to decay. We'll have to repackage them eventually. By that eventually, they would probably be all forgotten about. They must be stockpiled DEEP underground where they can cause no harm.

I heard some promising things about Thorium reactors though.

[JoshuaFH]

What's a thorium reactor?

[Yanlin]

Basically same as nuclear but less powerful. Also leave waste that decays within reasonable time and can be easily contained in caskets.

[Servant Corps]

Discussion about "Iranian nuclear program for PEACEFUL PURPOSES!!11!1" has pretty much very little to do with this topic.

* Servant Corps shrugs.

I guess that since the embers die, I guess I could lock it, but I don't want to, especially since, well, people want to talk.

[Yanlin]

Aye. The original topic has been discussed to death.

[LegoLord]

Aye. The original topic has been discussed to death.

Actually, surprisingly, G.W. Bush never came up.  I have to say I'm surprised.  But it's a different topic now.

On the subject of nuclear power, dumping it underground doesn't sound like the best solution.  Radioactivity  can be detected, yes?  Then we should easily be able to create and maintain some sort of lead-plated waste storage facility, set to have an alarm go off when the waste needs to be repackaged.  It might be a bit costly, and maybe not too efficient, but it seems safer than sticking it underground where an earthquake or flood could bring up some radioactive particles again.

Also, nuclear waste can now be recycled to some extent, reducing the amount of actual waste.

[Yanlin]

What you just described was the entire plan of burying them underground. This facility will exist. Underground.

[Virex]

Also, nuclear waste can now be recycled to some extent, reducing the amount of actual waste.

I always wondered why they don't use nuclear waste to generate energy. I mean you've got piles of it, and it's kinda hot due to all the radio-activity. Why not use that heat for something usefull? Or am I missing something?

[Il Palazzo]

The remaining "waste" is simply not hot enough. It radiates harmful particles, but doesn't generate enough heat to be useful in power generating processes.

[Jude]

Interestingly, sociological study tells us that the Iranians (or any smaller power) having nukes actually REDUCES the likelihood of nuclear war ever happening. The reason being that the bigger the power disparity between two parties in conflict, the more likely violence is to occur. It's the same principle as MAD.

Not, of course, that that makes me any happier about the idea of nukes existing in general. But in addition to the fact that it's impossible to make a moral case for America and nobody else having nukes, you also have that pattern.

[Yanlin]

Of course the risk would logically be reduced. But the others that have nukes are not on an insane genocidal quest. (North Korea excluded. But I don't think they are that crazy.)

[LegoLord]

Of course the risk would logically be reduced. But the others that have nukes are not on an insane genocidal quest. (North Korea excluded. But I don't think they are that crazy.)

Yeah . . . those must not be good sociologists.  And America is not the only nation that has nukes.  Russia, France, England(?), etc.

[chaoticag]

The amount of security on the Russian missiles are frightningly inadequate from what I hear. I'd hate to have Russia fall to anyone just for that reason.

But back to Iran, despite what sociologists say, I would like to point out that no nuclear war has ever broken out on this planet, so we really have nothing to base likelyhood of it ever happening as there is precident to base this upon (feel free to argue against this though). The fact that their targets are distributed means that it is a lot less likely that any ecology, much less humans, can ever survive on a larger scale than ever before.

Say what you want about the cold war, but as it stands, if the cold war did turn into a nuclear war then most of Africa should survive as there are no valuble targets worth bombing within there, wheras who knows what would happen in todays world, as the new person with the big guns might just aim them at the world that doesn't agree with him.

[Onlyhestands]

Supposedly some of the former Soviet Republics got their hands on nukes (though of course they don't have the capacity for production). Its pretty worrying given how corrupt and lax the security of some of these nations are.


Although:
http://us.oneworld.net/node/139251

Heres a list of countries with nukes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons