Well, if the Democrats are going to lose Senate seats, I hope Harry Reid’s is one of them. Get Yucca Mountain going again, already.
From the official word, Yucca isn’t geologically stable. Not going to happen.
I don’t think it’s an interesting prediction since a tenth of a degree rise per decade is far less than what has occurred through natural variation.
Also, it has not yet come to pass.
Only if politics is given priority over reason.
By the way, I’m disinclined to take your word for it. Cite?
I’m sorry, ratfuck, who said I’m for the existence of hypercanes?
This is such a pussy straw man, that I’ll just leave that be. I’m talking about climate change, fucktard, pointing at hypercanes and saying, “That’s goofy, so there is no climate change!” is stupid.
You’re stupid if you think that’s a legit idea.
He’s not entirely wrong, but he’s also a stupid asshole, so there’s that.
It depends on what you mean by “geologically stable”. Is it in an area that sees earthquakes? Yes, but so is most of the US. Is it in an area that will see more than its fair share of strong earthquakes that could make containment a problem? No, almost certainly not.
So, it’s not “stable” if you want to get really technical about it. But that’s a shitty level of pedantry. Using a similar argument, nothing is truly “at rest” because molecular activity will always be non-zero.
Yucca mountain has seen more geologic study than just about any other piece of the earth and is safe for storing nuclear waste. Here’s the NRC site for Yucca Mountain studies.
What I don’t get is nuclear power opponents objections to the site, including and especially FXM. The waste has got to go somewhere, after all. The genie is out of the bottle. Even if we stop using nuclear power today, we still have tons and tons of waste that have to be safely stored for centuries. As it is, that stuff is just sitting around waiting for an accident. Better to put it in one, well studied location, than spread around the country.
I never objected to Yucca mountain, or any of the sites in Russia or China. Hell, I never objected to any site for storing nuclear waste.
I do object to creating a shit ton of hazardous extremely long lived dangerous as fuck nuclear waste and material that can be used to destroy and kill, with no plan for what to do about it.
And expecting other people to pay for the trouble.
If you wear a habit … and sit with nuns … I’m going to think you Catholic …
Once you pull your head out of that rabbithole you stuck it in … maybe you can explain what “climate change” means to you … and sorry about all those two syllable words.
Alarmism is alarmism, in a few years it will die down once everybody realizes that … you know … there’s nothing we can do about it. There’s many many reasons to get more efficient power sources, vehicles and appliances, like all the other types of pollution. This is a continuing process and we’re making great strides … without having to panic.
I heard a comment the other day basically saying that what shot down Yucca Mountain would shoot down anyplace. Locals are on their own with the nuclear waste. Transporting it is a major problem, if we truck it, we’ll have an accident … and if that happens in, say, Baltimore … welll … I think we know what that would do to Real Estate values … what with 32 tons of spent fuel rod scattered about.
The good news is that it’ll be cooled down enough before the next glaciers come cutting through.
Oh, good, the cite is from 1998 and was likely ignored. I was afraid you were describing something recent.
Compared to the alarmism on other topics that make up political discourse, global warming concerns are downright phlegmatic.
Haven’t you seen that nifty footage of trains crashing into those waste containers, leaving them intact? It’s cool beans.
Maybe there should be a topic, just one single topic, about nuclear issues. Wouldn’t that be something?
I don’t see the need, I admit.
No, of course not. An imagined danger is far more important than something that actually has happened.
warmers are a funny breed. Complete denial of any danger or harm from melting reactors and vast pollution by core materials.
Losing sleep over what “could” happen in the distant future.
An imagined danger of what - a broad discussion of nuclear issues across several topics?
Of course, but evidence and facts and shit like that only matter if they support what is already known to be true. In the warmer world, facts are fluid things, and measurements don’t really matter that much.
I kinda like the idea of a nuclear reactor in every neighborhood … makes sense under the 2nd Amendment [grin]
Agreeing with the consensus of trained professionals isn’t a bad thing. It’s what you do for everything else in your life, but you’ve decided that you’re smarter than the professionals for this one issue.
Until a consensus agree that hypercanes are likely, I’ll hold off.
Again, this isn’t the rabbithole. I accept the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field. You don’t, because you’re convinced that your ignorance is as good as their expertise.
That’s very stupid.
In any case, Climate Change Means to Me: *Because of human activities, the world is warmer than it would ordinarily be. *
What do you mean “trained professionals”? This isn’t prostitution or something that’s been around for thousands of years. People are researching climate change because we don’t know what’s going on. Out of the tens of thousands of people researching this, a handful doesn’t make a consensus. These are climate scientists, those who refuse to take the third year of calculus needed for dynamics.
This is called dogma, believing in something just because you’re told to. Have at it, live your life that way. You’d make a good Catholic.
If I asked about AGW, then I would agree with you. This is the rabbithole you’ve blinded yourself with, climate change has been happening every day for the past 4.7 billion years. Doesn’t Eliza direct you to this fundamental fact on Skeptical Science? If I ask “how warm would the world be without human activities”, you answer with dirty names and declare me a denialist … what does your Most Holy Consensus say about that question … and why do you get so damn upset?
Let me stoke your ire a bit more, why is this a bad thing?