search results matching tag: nuclear waste

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (11)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (3)     Comments (75)   

John Oliver - Bannon Out!

eric3579 says...

(edit)

@hermannthegerman This is the same as the other video you posted (Nuclear waste). Just different title. Very small part is actually about Bannon as it's the whole episode.
For reference(whole episode) https://youtu.be/8NlH-5sva2s

Here is the Bannon piece if you want to fix this dead video to match the title. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5PPtT_ZP4

I would fix it myself if i knew you would want to change the video. However Its a minute and a half compared to almost 30 min.

Last Week Tonight - Nuclear Waste

Rethinking Nuclear Power

transmorpher says...

One of the things that makes me anti-nuclear is the radioactive and toxic waste. Weaponization, accidents and disasters all have a chance to happen, but are hypothetical. However, nuclear waste is created when things are running perfectly as planned, it's part of the plan.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx
"Direct disposal (after storage) to a geological repository. The material has very long-lived radioactivity, and will take about 300,000 years to reach the same level as the original ore.
Aqueous reprocessing to remove only uranium and plutonium. The material then only takes about 9000 years to reach the same level of radioactivity as the original ore."

I love how they say "only about 9000 years" like it's not a big deal hahah

Renewable green energy all the way :-)

notarobot said:

I used to be anti-nuclear. The basis for this was one part "oh no, meltdowns!" and one part anti-war. The second part of this concern happened when I learned that the material in warheads is refined in nuclear reactors.

As I continued my research I learned that newer reactors can be built that do not enrich weapons-grade material. They can't be used for bombs.

With the new reactor technology, I was left with only the concern around meltdowns. Even with older technology, meltdowns are very rare. Newer technology---like what's mentioned in this video--is even safer..

Now, I'm an old hippie, and I still prefer solar and wind (in my ideal world) but my concern over nuclear was pretty much put to rest with all that I've learned.

As long as the powerplants are designed in such a way that they do not create material that can be weaponized, I'm pretty much okay with it.

Rethinking Nuclear Power

spawnflagger says...

I don't see nuclear having a renaissance anytime soon...
Solar and Wind are already cheaper, don't emit CO2, and don't produce nuclear waste that has to be transported and stored in exotic containers for thousands of generations.

Thorium salt reactors also produce waste.

Nuclear does make a useful energy source for NASA space probes though.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

RNC declares that coal is Clean

Mordhaus says...

Coal is massively dirty, but even if you do run it through clean burning plants, the main danger is not the smoke.

Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive materials. Depending on the 'dirtiness' of the coal, the true problem is that by mining it or burning it, you separate those trace amounts. Larger amounts of coal ash or coal tailing(s) from even your average coal will give a geiger counter fits.

Do you want to know the fun part? The coal industry has buried studies and lobbied for legislation that makes TENORMS (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material) unable to be regulated the same as any other radioactive waste. So if you live in a coal producing or burning area that creates ash or tailing ponds, you can be sucking up the same amount of alpha particle radiation as if you were in the vicinity of a nice large pool of nuclear waste.

Ain't coal grand?

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

Mordhaus says...

The mean estimate of the number of ALL North American tribes was around 8 million (8.5 if you consider the small amount in Canada). Want to know the population of LA? If you guess around 4 million, you are correct.

The population of the state of California is close to 40 million. About 1/3 to 1/2 of that number lives in what should be desert. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico have about 20 million people, most of whom live in desert like conditions. You can't support that number of people in a desert region on existing resources.

As far as food waste and obesity, you are talking about a small handful of developed, affluent nations. The rest of the world is starving. Even if we magically moved that food waste daily to people in need around the world, we would still have people who didn't get enough. We are at our limit on supplying food for the population, as it continues to grow, even the food waste issue will need to be solved if we plan to keep people just in those first world nations fed.

Trawling today is different. It used to be about doing as little work as you needed to for the most return. Now it is about getting your quota before the season ends, because we are desperately trying to keep the marine population sustainable. Even so, we are running out of some types of fish. Wild catch salmon is going to be gone in a few years, it will mostly be farm raised, which will also impact the environment. Cod is harder to come by as well because it is being over fished.

I have to admit, I don't know where you are going with the nuclear issue and weapons. The amount of nuclear waste from decommissioned weapons is minimal. The amount from power, medical, and research is far greater. All three are fueled by a need to either provide power to a large population, keeping people alive, or researching future power/medical uses.

Am I relieved when friends or family members die? No, but those people are already here. They are already factored into the system, so to speak. What we need to do to fix our current looming nightmare is to prevent or persuade people to stop having kids. Population is not a data-in only situation, it's data-out also. People die, if you don't replace them then there are more resources available. My wife and I chose not to have kids, not because we wouldn't love them, but because it was the responsible thing to do. As @newtboy mentioned, we won't necessarily fix all the issues by reducing population growth, but it would be a huge help. It might also give us time to work out other solutions, because we are looking down the barrel of a loaded gun.

diego said:

you have people living in artificial environments that use tons of power because they want to, because they like it, not because they REQUIRE it. native americans lived in southwest USA for a thousand years just fine without the need of AC or diverting rivers.

go read up on the absurd agricultural subsidies tied to the colorado river- that isnt a problem created because farmers need to produce food to feed the world, its a problem created because politicians want money making businesses to tax, and because people are willing to spend money to eat what they like instead of what there is, a lot of money is made.

same with trawling- nothing to do with feeding all those people, everything to do with money. trawling has been going on for over a hundred years, well before the world population was even a 3rd of what it is currently- fishermen trawl because they want to be efficient because that makes them more money, not because they are concerned about how they are going to feed undernourished people.

the problem isnt getting people to eat insects. the problem is getting the developed world to stop eating so much, especially so much meat. there is an obesity epidemic around the world, over 3000 tons of food are discarded every day, and you want to tell me the problem is not enough food?

and lets not be disingenuous about nuclear waste, nuclear technology was invented as a weapon, not an energy source. you're telling me that if tomorrow a terrible plague wiped out 90% of the earths population, that nuclear armed states would give up their nuclear weapons? bs.

the video is on point. the environmental crisis is caused by greed, not because there are too many people on the planet. and if you feel so strongly that there are too many people on the planet, I assume you are relieved when your family members die? Unless you are willing to volunteer yourself and your family to die for the greater good, overpopulation is a facile bogey man to mask what you really want to say- lets get rid of all those "other" people so *I* dont have to change my own lifestyle.

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

newtboy says...

My point (I'll not speak for @Mordhaus ) was that all these terrible things people do could be 'absorbed' by the planet (with the possible exception of nuclear wastes) if there was only 1/10 of them.
Many would not be needed as they are today, that's not to say they would not be used. Today, many of those practices are the only way to produce the quantity needed to feed us, like heavy trawling, which now is almost a requirement in many cases since so many types of fish are scarce at best, and completely gone in most cases.
It's not likely that we'll manage to change the wasteful behavior of the average human enough to make a difference, but creating fewer of them could go a long way towards solving most problems we face....not all, but most.
I'm relieved when my family members decide to not have more children. I see the good in it for the planet when a family member dies, but I'm not 'relieved' as such. That's an ugly and disingenuous way to consider our point about overpopulation.

diego said:

you have people living in artificial environments that use tons of power because they want to, because they like it, not because they REQUIRE it. native americans lived in southwest USA for a thousand years just fine without the need of AC or diverting rivers.

go read up on the absurd agricultural subsidies tied to the colorado river- that isnt a problem created because farmers need to produce food to feed the world, its a problem created because politicians want money making businesses to tax, and because people are willing to spend money to eat what they like instead of what there is, a lot of money is made.

same with trawling- nothing to do with feeding all those people, everything to do with money. trawling has been going on for over a hundred years, well before the world population was even a 3rd of what it is currently- fishermen trawl because they want to be efficient because that makes them more money, not because they are concerned about how they are going to feed undernourished people.

the problem isnt getting people to eat insects. the problem is getting the developed world to stop eating so much, especially so much meat. there is an obesity epidemic around the world, over 3000 tons of food are discarded every day, and you want to tell me the problem is not enough food?

and lets not be disingenuous about nuclear waste, nuclear technology was invented as a weapon, not an energy source. you're telling me that if tomorrow a terrible plague wiped out 90% of the earths population, that nuclear armed states would give up their nuclear weapons? bs.

the video is on point. the environmental crisis is caused by greed, not because there are too many people on the planet. and if you feel so strongly that there are too many people on the planet, I assume you are relieved when your family members die? Unless you are willing to volunteer yourself and your family to die for the greater good, overpopulation is a facile bogey man to mask what you really want to say- lets get rid of all those "other" people so *I* dont have to change my own lifestyle.

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

diego says...

you have people living in artificial environments that use tons of power because they want to, because they like it, not because they REQUIRE it. native americans lived in southwest USA for a thousand years just fine without the need of AC or diverting rivers.

go read up on the absurd agricultural subsidies tied to the colorado river- that isnt a problem created because farmers need to produce food to feed the world, its a problem created because politicians want money making businesses to tax, and because people are willing to spend money to eat what they like instead of what there is, a lot of money is made.

same with trawling- nothing to do with feeding all those people, everything to do with money. trawling has been going on for over a hundred years, well before the world population was even a 3rd of what it is currently- fishermen trawl because they want to be efficient because that makes them more money, not because they are concerned about how they are going to feed undernourished people.

the problem isnt getting people to eat insects. the problem is getting the developed world to stop eating so much, especially so much meat. there is an obesity epidemic around the world, over 3000 tons of food are discarded every day, and you want to tell me the problem is not enough food?

and lets not be disingenuous about nuclear waste, nuclear technology was invented as a weapon, not an energy source. you're telling me that if tomorrow a terrible plague wiped out 90% of the earths population, that nuclear armed states would give up their nuclear weapons? bs.

the video is on point. the environmental crisis is caused by greed, not because there are too many people on the planet. and if you feel so strongly that there are too many people on the planet, I assume you are relieved when your family members die? Unless you are willing to volunteer yourself and your family to die for the greater good, overpopulation is a facile bogey man to mask what you really want to say- lets get rid of all those "other" people so *I* dont have to change my own lifestyle.

Mordhaus said:

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

Mordhaus says...

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

diego said:

actually, its not at all like that. the planet has food and land in surplus for everyone, but there is huge waste. Some of it is the price of technology and the modern life style, some of it is avoidable, reckless waste, but its not only a matter of "if there were only less people". That wouldnt make trawling the ocean any less destructive, or nuclear waste any less toxic. The planet is going to survive no matter what, the question is in what form, reducing the number of people on the planet only changes the time it takes to ruin the planet if the people that remain are going to continue irresponsibly consuming and contaminating as before.

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

diego says...

actually, its not at all like that. the planet has food and land in surplus for everyone, but there is huge waste. Some of it is the price of technology and the modern life style, some of it is avoidable, reckless waste, but its not only a matter of "if there were only less people". That wouldnt make trawling the ocean any less destructive, or nuclear waste any less toxic. The planet is going to survive no matter what, the question is in what form, reducing the number of people on the planet only changes the time it takes to ruin the planet if the people that remain are going to continue irresponsibly consuming and contaminating as before.

newtboy said:

*promote some good points.
It's a bit sad to me that he doesn't seem to know or care that overpopulation is the root cause of all these 'problems', because the earth can survive through all the different damages people have done to it if there was only less damage done. We can cut forests without damage, if we only cut as much as we replant AND grow, we can burn fossil fuels if we only burn as much as the forests can filter, etc. If we had <1/10 the number of people doing <1/10 the amount of damage, the planet would likely be fine. Also...*commercial (since it's an advertisement for standfortrees.org)

Nuclear energy is awesome

ChaosEngine says...

Actually, I understand exponential decay just fine thanks, and it's still nowhere close to 500 million years.

Besides, nuclear waste is a localised problem. Sure, it's pretty goddamn awful wherever it is, but carbon is a global problem. We can decide that say, Australia, should be a nuclear wasteland, and the rest of the world would be pretty much ok. It'd suck for the barrier reef though.

Radiation isn't really anything close to a "destroyer of worlds". Even around Chernobyl, there are still plants and animals living there.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wildlife-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-bears-wolves-rare-horses-roam-forests-1477124

cryptoz said:

So you need to understand Exponential Decay a bit better. Try http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/ExpDecay/decay1.html
Then you discount how long people would be producing it. Sure, its not millions but that wasn't the point, just an exaggeration to help make the point, life can come back from carbon, nuclear waste is a destroyer of worlds.

Nuclear energy is awesome

cryptoz says...

So you need to understand Exponential Decay a bit better. Try http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/ExpDecay/decay1.html
Then you discount how long people would be producing it. Sure, its not millions but that wasn't the point, just an exaggeration to help make the point, life can come back from carbon, nuclear waste is a destroyer of worlds.

ChaosEngine said:

First up, it's not 500 million years. Nuclear waste (typically Plutonium 239) has a half life of around 24000 years, an eyeblink geologically. Even if it wouldn't be too flash for life as we know it for a while, the planet will be fine, and life will recover.

Nuclear energy is awesome

jimnms says...

Burning coal releases more radioactive material in the environment than nuclear power. [1] [2]

cryptoz said:

This is absurd. Current pollution could wipe out our speices and maybe all the animals... but the planet would survive and could replenish. Cover the place in radiation for 500 million years and its screwed.

I'm not against new forms like the end of the video talks about but sticking the nuke drug into the problem with the hopes that maybe someday we will have a treatment is a stupid crack pipe dream.

Nuclear energy is terrible

ChaosEngine says...

Cool, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with @kir_mokum, he just didn't actually make any points.

I agree that nuclear weapons are not really an issue when it comes to building power plants. Personally, I think it's hypocritical in the extreme for the people with the nuclear weapons to tell others they can't have them. I'd much rather no-one had them.

"Germany has literally tons of the stuff just laying around"
Depends on what you mean by "lying around". No, it's not out in the open, but it is just "lying around" in the sense that they have shitloads of it (in one site alone they have nearly 126000 barrels) and they're not doing anything with it. Waste disposal *is* a serious issue with current nuclear technology.

As for deaths, I suppose what gets people about nuclear disasters is that other disasters tend to be more short term. From a media POV: if some people die in a coal mine, that's sad, but they were miners and it's over pretty quick, but dying kids from Chernobyl make great TV!

I tend to agree that it's probably safer in the long run.

bremnet said:

Sorry to jump the thread here; not sure if dubious is the word either, but pretty amateur and more fear mongering with no supporting data.


stuff



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon