1y ago

Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance

www.theguardian.com Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance

Swedish teenager Ia Anstoot says group’s ‘unscientific’ opposition to EU nuclear power serves fossil fuel interests

You're viewing a single thread.

1.2K comments

When she can tell me a practical, long-term, solution to nuclear waste, demonstrate that a nuclear bomb is not a military target, sure.
We just saw Japan release nuclear waste into the ocean for lack of a solution (to the waste from a fucking nuclear disaster) , don't tell me it's not a problem.
Yes I know coal emits radioactive waste, I'm not a coal advocate.
- Here are few things to consider:
  The vast majority of nuclear waste is not highly radioactive. Over 90% of it is low-level waste. As we progresses we're finding better ways to manage and reduce this or even recycling it.
  The Fukushima incident though unfortunate and a reminder to improve safety standards didn't result in any direct fatalities due to radiation. In fact, the amount of radioactivity released into the ocean was 0 when you look at the vastness of the Pacific and the dilution. The oceans already contain a considerable amount of natural radiation and the added amount from the incident, though not better than nothing is a drop in the ocean size bucket.
  Air pollution from coal plants contributes to numerous premature deaths yearly with some estimates in the hundreds of thousands globally. This is far more concerning than the potential risks posed by nuclear energy especially when managed with modern safety standards. Just see Fukushima.
  As for nuclear plants being military targets, any infrastructure can become a target in wartime, dams, chemical plants or any other energy installations. The key is to ensure safety and security measures.
  
  Thank you, could not have said it better. Nuclear is the way forward, at least until fusion energy is viable.
  
  The vast majority of nuclear waste is not highly radioactive. Over 90% of it is low-level waste. As we progresses we’re finding better ways to manage and reduce this or even recycling it.
  Even still, it still needs to be transported, stored in specialized facilities, etc. All that transport and resource usage isn't free and must be considered as part of the cost of nuclear.
  The Fukushima incident though unfortunate and a reminder to improve safety standards didn’t result in any direct fatalities due to radiation.
  Direct fatalities is a poor metric for nuclear safety.
  As for nuclear plants being military targets, any infrastructure can become a target in wartime, dams, chemical plants or any other energy installations. The key is to ensure safety and security measures.
  Those are great arguments for not doing those things as well. These are things that massive unsustainable human populations make use of and are not necessary to thriving human populations.
- practical, long-term, solution to nuclear waste
  This depends on the type of waste, and how radioactive it is. The overwhelming majority of nuclear waste is low level, and capable of being safely stored in steel/concrete casks. The higher level stuff can be safely stored in exhausted mines.
  demonstrate that a nuclear bomb is not a military target, sure
  All power sources are inherently military targets, so you've defined an impossible task.
  Additionally, you can design a plant to be a lower risk target in the case of an attack. We've had decades of research put into how to make these plants safe.
  https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf
  https://theconversation.com/how-to-protect-nuclear-plants-from-terrorists-57094
  We just saw Japan release nuclear waste into the ocean for lack of a solution
  I'm not thrilled with it either, but the waste they are releasing is diluted.
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66610977
  The water they are releasing is basically no different than the radioactivity of normal sea water.
  
  I would also emphasize that nuclear reactor =/= nuclear bomb. Power reactors cannot under any circumstances cause a nuclear explosion.
  
  The solution to pollution is dilution! right!?
  
  In the case of radioactive water, yes. Our oceans are huge, and there is no real impact.
  
  This is what humans have been saying about auto exhaust, factory emissions, agricultural emissions etc for a hundred years. It's turned out wrong in every way.
  (edit) Now that I think about it, isn't your position basically the same as the right wing position on climate change? That even if it exists humans are too small to actually effect the huge atmosphere so it's not human caused.
  "The amount of X that industry is dumping into the Y is insignificant and nothing to be concerned about" is an inherently flawed argument, and all the worse when there are 8 billion people on the planet.
  
  This is what humans have been saying about auto exhaust, factory emissions, agricultural emissions etc for a hundred years. It’s turned out wrong in every way.
  There is a key difference, fossil fuel use inherently ends up leaving pollution in the atmosphere, nuclear power does not do anything of the same.
  it, isn’t your position basically the same as the right wing position on climate change?
  Nope. It's not even close
  That even if it exists humans are too small to actually effect the huge atmosphere so it’s not human caused.
  That's not even close to what I am saying.
  All sea water is radioactive already, and has been since before humans got nukes. And thats because all sea water has tritium at low levels. When we release water that is at the same level as sea water, nothing changes.
  It's like adding a red ball or playdoh to a red ball of playdoh. There's not going to be a difference. Fossil fuels on the other hand would be like adding a black ball of playdoh to a red one.
- Maybe learn some science before you sound stupid in public? That waste water was cleaner than your drinking water.
  
  Maybe learn some science before you sound stupid in public
  lol

1153 comments