Skip Navigation

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

Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
1.1K

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
1.1K comments
  • So you don't mind radioactivity in the air you breathe around the power stations, but when it's buried deep inside a mountain it bothers you?

    • The air radiation thing is misleading, saying the area around coal plants is more radioactive than nuclear plants isnt saying anything, because the air around nuclear plants isnt radioactive.

      Most US nuclear waste isnt buried, because we dont have anywhere ready to. Its stuck in on site storage. It might be safely stored for now, but that waste is gonna accumulate like nothing before because of how crazy long it remains dangerously radioactive. Nuclear waste produced 10000 years from now is still gonna be competing with nuclear waste produced today for room to be safely stored.

      • @blazera @sv1sjp @13esq
        The company Moltex Energy claims they can “recycle waste from existing nuclear power stations, and use it to produce more clean energy”. If true it could solve several problems at once.
        https://www.moltexenergy.com

      • @blazera
        @dilmandila
        Inaccurate. To take it back to basics:

        Radioactive material radiates, because it decays. The more it radiates, the faster it decays. The highest level radioactive material from nuclear fission reactors has half-life measured in decades (30 years), that is, half of it will decay in that time. It does NOT take thousands of years. Conversely, the long-lived isotopes radiate much less, thus are easier to store and process.

        https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

        • I dont think you read your source quite right. The classification for high level waste is the most radioactive spent fuel, but it is absolutely not safe after a few decades, it decays into still dangerously radioactive isotopes. Maybe you read the part about the dry casques being rated for 40 years but keep reading. They are a temporary solution, and the waste still needs to be buried for tens of thousands of years. Which is a big problem right now because, from your source

          At this time there are no facilities for permanent disposal of high-level waste.

          • @blazera
            I did not say it was safe, I said after a few decades is far easier to process. It does not remain "crazy" high radioactive for thousands of years - that is pure hyperbole. The chart attached illustrates radiotoxicity if ingested - and no one advises anyone to eat nuclear waste.

            Ps. There is a country which has solved long term storage. Guess where I live.
            Source: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/587853#
            @dilmandila

            • And what you said was still wrong, it still remains dangerously radioactive, and must be stored for tens of thousands of years. Like, youre not gonna find me a source saying this shit doesnt need to be stored for tens of thousands of years.

1129 comments