# The environmental movement, and its irrational fear of nuclear energy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2007, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827 "2007-01-05T16:38:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/101 "2007-01-07T02:58:31Z")
[QUOTE=pantom] You should provide cites when presenting new info like that. I did find [this](http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusa.html#SEAWATER) on the feasibility of seawater mining of uranium. For thorium, I found something that makes it sound like [some sort of panacea:](http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/) : Very interesting. Not at all sure how true any of this is. [/QUOTE] Sorry - I’ve posted about seawater exctraction several times before, with numerous cites. I just didn’t want to be bothered looking it up again. But I should have. Anyway, your site is interesting because it gives much lower estimates for seawater extraction than I had seen before. My old cite said $500/lb, as I recall. Maybe the processes have improved since my old cite was written. In any event, it can be done, and it can be done reasonably economically. As for the thorium, I don’t know much about it other than that several different reactor designs can burn thorium in their fuel cycle, and that it’s presently much cheaper than uranium. The [Canadian Nuclear FAQ](http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/) has a lot of good information about Canada’s nuclear power program, CANDU reactors, and nuclear power in general. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/102 "2007-01-07T03:30:44Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] This isn’t the movies. When trains crash, there are no huge explosions. And as I said, the canisters are designed to withstand every type of crash scenario. And they aren’t exactly pressurized bombs. If one of them did crack open, it would just leak a bunch of foul stuff onto the ground. We would then have to clean that up. Again, this isn’t the end of the world, or even a particularly dangerous disaster. [/quote] I don’t believe I said “when trains crash there are huge explosions.” Did I say that? Opponents of Yucca Mountain suggest one possible scenario: [http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0204/msg00468.html](http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0204/msg00468.html) > [@](#): > > Fire during a high-impact accident involving a nuclear waste spill could turn the radioactive material into an aerosol, spreading it over a large area and into ground water and the food chain, said Joe Strolin, planning division administrator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. The agency, part of the governor’s office, opposes the Yucca Mountain proposal. > “That would be a truly nasty scenario,” Strolin said. And then you seem to have ignored the possibility of a deliberate attack. Certainly not impossible. > [@](#): > > What a ridiculous argument. We shouldn’t implement our plans because…our plans haven’t been implemented yet. Is that correct? Does that make any kind of sense? Nice strawman. :rolleyes: That’s not even remotely close to what I said. For anyone interested in what I _actually_ said, it was that we shouldn’t be ramping up the building of _new_ plants when we haven’t even solved the storage problem for the waste from the ones we _have already_. How you could misinterpret the point as “we shouldn’t implement our plans” is beyond me. Try addressing what I write rather than stuff you make up. “Plans” are not working solutions. > [@](#): > > Of course we are ‘equipped’ to handle it. What we don’t have is a regulatory framework that allows us to deal with it properly, mostly due to NIMBY attitudes and pandering politicians responding to the fear created by an hysterical anti-nuke movement. “obsessed”, “irrational” - now “hysterical”. Yawn… > [@](#): > > Really? We also have plans to deal with spilled acids and other chemicals. Should we ban them all? Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of a plan to take care of spills is an argument against transporting the stuff? No, it’s an argument against your absurd contention that because someone wrote down some _procedures_, that it somehow means the stuff isn’t dangerous. Surely I was clear on that. > [@](#): > > Frankly, given this last message of yours, it’s hard to take you seriously in this debate. You aren’t putting up reasonable arguments - you’re just throwing out whatever comes to the top of your head, hoping some of it will stick or you can just drown us in objections. Is that supposed to be an argument? You seem to be getting more and more angry and simply resorting to insulting your opponents. > [@](#): > > This is pretty much what I’ve come to expect from many anti-nuclear types. They don’t understand the science or engineering behind the issue. They just have their fears, and no amount of reasoning will change that. Is this an argument or simply a rant? ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/103 "2007-01-07T03:38:34Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] (If you seriously believe someone can set up a plan to shoot heat-seeking missiles at a nuclear waste-carrying train, in this country, and carry it off without getting stopped, you need to enter a 12-step program aimed at weaning you from taking stuff like “24” and Tom Clancy movies seriously.) [/QUOTE] Not sure why you think they’d have to be “heat-seeking missiles” :dubious:, but substitute in “simultaneously hijack 4 commercial jetliners with boxcutters and crash them into important lankmarks without being stopped”. In 1999 that would have sounded pretty Tom Clancy-ish, wouldn’t you say? Explain how firing a missile or setting off a bomb on a train would be any more impossible than that. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/104 "2007-01-07T04:09:12Z")
A terrorist attacking a nuclear waste transport with a TOW anti-tank missile would be the worst terrorist attack ever. First off, that’d be pretty hard to pull off. Second, as has already been said, a hole in the side of a transport vessal wouldn’t be that bad. If someone is right next to it yeah they may die, but that’s true of hundreds of noxious chemicals which are already transported around the country. Maybe the terrorists will start attacking those anyday too. I don’t understand why using this anti-nuclear waste logic wouldn’t lead us to ban many things we already use that have potentially negative aspects if some crazy person wants to kill people. As **lowbrass** said: “…simultaneously hijack 4 commercial jetliners with boxcutters and crash them into important lankmarks without being stopped”. OK, so should we ban planes now? There are other ways to get around. We’d have to pay higher prices for goods and take boats more often but hey, no terrorist attacks from the skies. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/105 "2007-01-07T06:13:20Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] I don’t believe I said “when trains crash there are huge explosions.” Did I say that? [/quote] You said, "why are you discounting the possibility of an explosion? " My response was that trains don’t explode. > [@](#): > > Opponents of Yucca Mountain suggest one possible scenario: Wow. Opponents of moving nuclear waste have described a ‘nightmare scenario’ intended to frighten people. I’m shocked. It’s nonsense - a paragraph written specifically to frighten people. Unless they can describe the type of accident with the current canisters that would cause nuclear materials to be sprayed in the air in aerosol and then ‘get into the food chain’, I’m not buying. > [@](#): > > And then you seem to have ignored the possibility of a deliberate attack. Certainly not impossible. No I haven’t. But here’s the thing - terrorists attack soft targets in ways that will cause maximum loss of life. If they’ve got a TOW missile, there are better terrorist uses it can be put to - such as shooting down the President’s helicopter, shooting down a jet on final approach to an airport, etc. A waste convoy will be armored and protected. It would require and extremely sophisticated attack to hit one of them. And the result would be - a toxic spill that has to be cleaned up. I’m not saying they won’t try. I’m saying the risk of a terrorist deciding to attack a waste convoy, and succeeding, ANd managing to breach a canister is low enough that it’s acceptable given the consequences if an attack succeeded. Hell, if you want to worry about terrorists poisoning the population, you might check and see how much concentrated chlorine is stored at your typical water treatment plant, and how many people it could kill if it was released in a populated area. Chlorine gas is considered a weapon of mass destruction. There are 168,000 water treatment plants in the United States, and many of them have large concentrations of chlorine present and unguarded. The reason I consider you irrational on this subject is because people like you are willing to ignore much larger risks, but when the risk involves radioactive materials suddenly everything has to be not just safe, but completely foolproof - a standard impossible to attain. You invent nightmare scenarios, keep repeating the same arguments while ignoring all refutations, refuse to examine the actual science and engineering while claiming that there are still scientific and engineering problems. > [@](#): > > Nice strawman. :rolleyes: That’s not even remotely close to what I said. For anyone interested in what I _actually_ said, it was that we shouldn’t be ramping up the building of _new_ plants when we haven’t even solved the storage problem for the waste from the ones we _have already_. How you could misinterpret the point as “we shouldn’t implement our plans” is beyond me. Try addressing what I write rather than stuff you make up. You offered this as an argument against implementing a plan: "You keep talking about plans and designs. Do we have this procedure wherein the waste is encased in bomb-proof containers and transported to Yucca Mountain up and running? No, we don’t. " We’re arguing about getting it up and running, and offer plans to do so. Your argument back is that these are just plans, and have never been up and running. Then you say, > [@](#): > > “Plans” are not working solutions. No, for that to happen you actually have to try them. Then they become working solutions. That’s what this whole argument is about. > [@](#): > > No, it’s an argument against your absurd contention that because someone wrote down some _procedures_, that it somehow means the stuff isn’t dangerous. Surely I was clear on that. Someone didn’t just ‘write down some procedures’. They have been _carried out_ on actual nuclear spills, many times. _They work_. This is known as ‘risk mitigation’. It means that the stuff isn’t as dangerous. Danger = risk \* severity. lower the risk, lower the danger. Proven procedures for handling nuclear spills safely mean transporting it is less dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/106 "2007-01-07T08:10:57Z")
One thing the Greens never mention: burnung coal releases uranium (as well as mercury, sulphur dioxide, and other pollutants). Nuclear power is clean and safe. The main problems in the USA have been: -stymied construction of nuclear plants (the approval process takes years) -the nuclear waste issue -the poor running policies of the utilities Frankly, the actvities of Green peace and its allies have made investment in nuclear power plants unprofitable, and politically untenable-I hope these peopl realize how much damage their activities have caused! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![clayton\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@clayton\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clayton_e)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/107 "2007-01-07T10:01:52Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] Meanwhile, the dangers of global warming are planetary in scope. Whole ecosystems could crash. [/QUOTE] Whole ecosystems _will_ crash. It is going to happen. Increased development of the 3rd and 2nd worlds will far outweigh the occasional hybrid we put on the road. I also found a [video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQaKeXZYRJk) of nuclear waste transport containers being tested. (note, there may be some bias, as the video is made by some nuclear organization. It is also translated from French to Spanish.. Sorry, best I could find) Now.. That behind me. I’m against nuclear energy. Why? No matter what we’re screwed. Put a couple billion more people on this planet and we’re totally screwed no matter what we do. Decrease our energy dependance? China builds how many coal power plants a day? Screw it. We’re done. Build more nuclear power plants? When the shit hits the fan and for whatever reason we’re pretty much done for (say a good size chunk of rock hitting the planet) the few remaining people will have to deal with walking around wondering if the land they’re on had a meltdown in the last days of our reign. Say we don’t build nuclear power plants. Ok, no nuclear meltdowns in the last days. Lots of carbon, lots of greenhouse effects, but over time that WILL go away. Lot of good it does us, though. And I’m also worried about some idiot pulling another Three Mile Island in my lifetime. The fewer power plants, the less likely I am to be near one when someone flips the wrong switch. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but there ya go. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/108 "2007-01-07T10:20:35Z")
[QUOTE=clayton\_e] I’m against nuclear energy. Why? No matter what we’re screwed. Put a couple billion more people on this planet and we’re totally screwed no matter what we do. Decrease our energy dependance? China builds how many coal power plants a day? Screw it. We’re done. Build more nuclear power plants? When the shit hits the fan and for whatever reason we’re pretty much done for (say a good size chunk of rock hitting the planet) the few remaining people will have to deal with walking around wondering if the land they’re on had a meltdown in the last days of our reign. Say we don’t build nuclear power plants. Ok, no nuclear meltdowns in the last days. Lots of carbon, lots of greenhouse effects, but over time that WILL go away. Lot of good it does us, though. [/quote] While I expect quite a lot of suffering due to our ecological irresponsibility ( and I expect our descendants will despise our memory and curse our names ), I see no reason to believe that human civilization will be destroyed - not by ecological problems, at least. We can at least try to shorten and weaken the likely upcoming catastrophe, and we might even stop it. I see nothing at all to be gained by doing nothing. [QUOTE=clayton\_e] And I’m also worried about some idiot pulling another Three Mile Island in my lifetime. The fewer power plants, the less likely I am to be near one when someone flips the wrong switch. [/QUOTE] And why would you care if you were near another “Three Mile Island”. No one died. Three Mile Island was pathetic as industrial accidents go. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/109 "2007-01-07T10:28:28Z")
> [@mstay](#): > > As lowbrass said: “…simultaneously hijack 4 commercial jetliners with boxcutters and crash them into important lankmarks without being stopped”. OK, so should we ban planes now? There are other ways to get around. We’d have to pay higher prices for goods and take boats more often but hey, no terrorist attacks from the skies. People not reading what I wrote seems to be reaching epidemic proportions. I said that _only_ in response to Polycarp’s sarcastic assertion that anyone who imagines a successful terrorist attack needs to be in a 12-step program. How in the world is this getting inflated to banning planes? Will the strawmen ever end? [QUOTE=Sam Stone] You said, "why are you discounting the possibility of an explosion? " My response was that trains don’t explode. [/quote] No it wasn’t. Your response was, "This isn’t the movies. When trains crash, there are no huge explosions. " So again, did I say this was like the movies, and did I say that when trains crash, there are huge explosions? > [@](#): > > Wow. Opponents of moving nuclear waste have described a ‘nightmare scenario’ intended to frighten people. I’m shocked. > > It’s nonsense - a paragraph written specifically to frighten people. Unless they can describe the type of accident with the current canisters that would cause nuclear materials to be sprayed in the air in aerosol and then ‘get into the food chain’, I’m not buying. Disprove it, then. > [@](#): > > No I haven’t. But here’s the thing - terrorists attack soft targets in ways that will cause maximum loss of life. If they’ve got a TOW missile, there are better terrorist uses it can be put to - such as shooting down the President’s helicopter, shooting down a jet on final approach to an airport, etc. . That’s the worst logic I’ve ever heard. We don’t need to consider the possibility of an attack on nuclear waste, because they’ll be too busy attacking the President’s helicopter? Are you serious? > [@](#): > > A waste convoy will be armored and protected. It would require and extremely sophisticated attack to hit one of them. And the result would be - a toxic spill that has to be cleaned up How to protect it should be one of the things to be considered. But you keep arguing that we just start building plants and worry about the details later. Bad idea. I wish _your_ assurance that it will be armored and protected were enough, but last time I checked you weren’t in charge of that. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying they won’t try. I’m saying the risk of a terrorist deciding to attack a waste convoy, and succeeding, ANd managing to breach a canister is low enough that it’s acceptable given the consequences if an attack succeeded. Gee, I’m glad you are able to make such an assessment sitting at home in front of your computer. Many people, with far more knowledge than you, disagree. > [@](#): > > Hell, if you want to worry about terrorists poisoning the population, you might check and see how much concentrated chlorine is stored at your typical water treatment plant, and how many people it could kill if it was released in a populated area. Chlorine gas is considered a weapon of mass destruction. There are 168,000 water treatment plants in the United States, and many of them have large concentrations of chlorine present and unguarded. > > The reason I consider you irrational on this subject is because people like you are willing to ignore much larger risks, More illogic from you. Stating concern about issue A does not indicate _lack_ of concern about issue B. > [@](#): > > but when the risk involves radioactive materials suddenly everything has to be not just safe, but completely foolproof - a standard impossible to attain. You invent nightmare scenarios, keep repeating the same arguments while ignoring all refutations, refuse to examine the actual science and engineering while claiming that there are still scientific and engineering problems. It is _you_ who is ignoring arguments. There have been a number of well-cited posts in this thread citing real risks, yet you pretend they don’t exist. > [@](#): > > You offered this as an argument against implementing a plan: "You keep talking about plans and designs. Do we have this procedure wherein the waste is encased in bomb-proof containers and transported to Yucca Mountain up and running? No, we don’t. " ENOUGH with the strawmen. That is not an “argument against implemeting a plan”. It is an argument FOR implementing a plan. Please quote where I said I am opposed to implementing a plan for the storage of currently existing nuclear waste. I never said it. You’re making that up. YOU are the one who advocates continuing to build _new_ plants without having a permanent storage procedure up and running. Are you being obtuse on purpose? > [@](#): > > We’re arguing about getting it up and running, and offer plans to do so. Your argument back is that these are just plans, and have never been up and running. O.K., I don’t know what to say now. You are simply failing to read what I write. > [@](#): > > Then you say, > No, for that to happen you actually have to try them. Then they become working solutions. That’s what this whole argument is about. No it’s not. It’s an argument about whether we should start building _more_ plants before we have even implemented a plan to take care of the waste from the _current_ plants. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/110 "2007-01-07T10:54:22Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] The reason I consider you irrational on this subject is because people like you are willing to ignore much larger risks, but when the risk involves radioactive materials suddenly everything has to be not just safe, but completely foolproof - a standard impossible to attain. You invent nightmare scenarios, keep repeating the same arguments while ignoring all refutations, refuse to examine the actual science and engineering while claiming that there are still scientific and engineering problems. [/QUOTE] Can you quantify the comparative risks between nuclear vs other risky activities we currently accept (like the transport of chlorine, etc.)? I think it would help the debate if you could provide the information that has convinced you that it is a reasonable risk to take. These are some of the types of things that need to be considered: 1. Duration of high level waste (scientists I see on internet say 25,000 years) 2. Storage containers that won’t corrode within the duration of waste (my cite earlier seems to indicate this is still an open issue) 3. Lethality of airborne waste (plutonium dust), or any waste that enters the water supply 4. Lethality of waste contaminating soil 5. Safety of transport canisters (per the videos, this appears to handled, although the “drop on spike” test was only from 40 inches, not sure if that meets/exceeds point force of common weapons like RPG’s, etc.) Other than the video, it doesn’t seem like much actual information has been provided regarding the risks, only statements that say the risk is low. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/111 "2007-01-07T11:17:24Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > You said, "why are you discounting the possibility of an explosion? " My response was that trains don’t explode. Maybe I can help on this one, I don’t think the original question assumed that the train was exploding, I think the original question assumed there are a number of different ways explosions could be made to happen on or near the waste being transported which could result in scattering nuclear waste. Is this something that should be discounted? If so, why? ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/112 "2007-01-07T15:33:12Z")
**lowbrass** , you seem vastly more concerned with flushing out the strawmen under your bed than you do with engaging with the central question in this debate – which is, of course, not whether trains explode, but whether the modest and containable dangers of nuclear waste outweight the risks of continuing to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. You know, I used the word “irrational” in the thread title advisedly. I think most, if not all, environmental organizations would agree that climate change is the single most pressing issue of our day. So why do they shy from a solution that could cut three-quarters of our emissions in the relatively short term, using off-the-shelf technology? Because there are modest political and engineering solutions that remain to be worked out? That’s irrational, and I don’t know any other way to express it. I think **Lumpy** nailed it upthread – for some of these environmental organizations, maintaining their anti-Big Business cred is more important than actually making an impact on fossil-fuel emissions. Which is to say that their radical chic is more central to them than their supposed mission. ---
**Author:** ![clayton\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@clayton\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clayton_e)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/113 "2007-01-07T18:07:45Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] While I expect quite a lot of suffering due to our ecological irresponsibility ( and I expect our descendants will despise our memory and curse our names ), I see no reason to believe that human civilization will be destroyed - not by ecological problems, at least. We can at least try to shorten and weaken the likely upcoming catastrophe, and we might even stop it. I see nothing at all to be gained by doing nothing. And why would you care if you were near another “Three Mile Island”. No one died. Three Mile Island was pathetic as industrial accidents go. [/QUOTE] Ok, a Chernobyl style mess at [Oyster Creek](http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=rx_com_matrix&qvar=unit&qval=431) (or at any of the many many future plants we’ll have to build near large population centers), right in the middle of urban-world. I’m most worried about a massive massive disaster _mostly_ wiping out mankind (or even just to cause total chaos for a while). A giant massive rock (or several in a shower) doing something similar to the [Tunguska event](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event) over populated areas. Yay, the people that survive get to have the nuclear plants around them either go kapow or slowly leak deadly radiation as they slowly try to get civilization back on track. And, again, while we sort our newspaper from the rest of the trash and verrrrryy gradually get a hybrid or two on the road.. Small steps which at least slightly slow the growth of our pollution that will grow exponentially with our population. Now look at, say, India. Or China. Or anywhere else that is developing economically by leaps and bounds. Still feel awesome about recycling your soda bottles? Meh, me too.. At least I get a nickel for each one in my state. And a [Penn & Teller vid](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886) to add to the depressing state of affairs. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/114 "2007-01-07T19:09:58Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] You know, I used the word “irrational” in the thread title advisedly. I think most, if not all, environmental organizations would agree that climate change is the single most pressing issue of our day. So why do they shy from a solution that could cut three-quarters of our emissions in the relatively short term, using off-the-shelf technology? Because there are modest political and engineering solutions that remain to be worked out? That’s irrational, and I don’t know any other way to express it. [/QUOTE] **Sal Ammoniac** , can you provide factual data/information that supports your point of view? I posted some items/questions in a response to **Sam Stone** that seem like an important part of calculations in this debate. Without data we are left with both side just saying “it’s safe enough” vs “not yet”. An example of where there is a disconnect is your following statement: “Because there are modest political and engineering solutions that remain to be worked out” This is contradicted by the information I was able to find regarding long term storage containers and corrosion. Do you have cites indicating this problem has been solved and containers using the technology are actually in use or starting to be used as opposed to limited quantities made in an R&D lab? ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/115 "2007-01-07T20:07:00Z")
**RaftPeople** , put it this way: what’s the absolute worst-case scenario for handling nuclear waste? If you did nothing more than pack it in steel drums and throw it into a hole in the Nevada desert, or into the Marianas trench, what could happen? Could anything really happen that would be planetary in scale? The fact is, we routinely store high-level waste in a suboptimal way – that is, on the grounds of the plants themselves, often in locations that are vulnerable to natural disaster – and yet not only does nothing happen, but nobody actually worries very much about it. Here in Eastern Massachusetts, you have some millions of people living within 50 miles of two older nuclear plants, both with coastal locations that do periodically get hit with hurricanes. And I can say with some certainty that people around here practically never even think about it. They certainly never talk about it. The fact is, an ordinary solution to this problem will work. You don’t need anything supernatural, and you don’t need millennia-long containment. \*\* Sam Stone\*\* mentioned a number of options way upthread, any one of which will be a viable and permanent solution to the problem. If in the meantime we muddle along, how is this worse than global warming? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/116 "2007-01-07T20:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=RaftPeople] Can you quantify the comparative risks between nuclear vs other risky activities we currently accept (like the transport of chlorine, etc.)? [quote] Well, since there are numerous risks we undertake every day, no I can’t quantify the risk of nuclear shipment compared to all of them. I live within a couple of miles of a huge collection of petroleum and other refineries. I personally have no idea what would happen if they were attacked by terrorists, but my brother who works in the industry says it could be very, very bad. There are such targets all over North America. > [@](#): > > I think it would help the debate if you could provide the information that has convinced you that it is a reasonable risk to take. Which is exactly what I and other people have been doing. We’ve talked about the storage problems of the waste, and what the solutions are. We’ve talked about transportation risks, and what the solutions are. We’ve talked about fuel availability, and what the solutions are. I’m not sure what else to say to convince you. > [@](#): > > These are some of the types of things that need to be considered: > > 1. Duration of high level waste (scientists I see on internet say 25,000 years) Doesn’t matter if you clean it up. Or if you’re talking about storage, you need to understand that there are different types of waste, with different half-lives. Saying the waste has a ‘duration of 25,000 years’ is not correct. Only the longest-lived isotopes like Plutonium have half-lives out that far. The really energetic stuff that causes the heating and radiation at a distance has much shorter half-lives. CANDU waste returns to the radiation levels of the original ore within about 400 years. > [@](#): > > 1. Storage containers that won’t corrode within the duration of waste (my cite earlier seems to indicate this is still an open issue) So long as you want your container to hold for 25,000 years, it’s a tough engineering problem. But again, I think that requirement is extreme. if the waste is viitrified, then even if the container corrodes it still won’t leach into the surrounding ground in other than trace amounts. > [@](#): > > 1. Lethality of airborne waste (plutonium dust), or any waste that enters the water supply “Plutonium Dust”? Where is that coming from? For that matter, unless you can show a mechanism for that waste to get into ‘the water supply’, does it matter? We handle all sort of chemicals and biological materials that are deadly if they get into the water supply or are dropped on people in aerosol form. As I said before, a single water treatment plant can hold enough chlorine to wipe out a town. There are 168,000 water treatment plants in the U.S. Why would you hold nuclear material to a higher standard? > [@](#): > > 1. Lethality of waste contaminating soil You can clean up contaminated soil. We have chemical spills with lethal materials all the time. You rope off the area, call the HAZMAT team, and clean it up. > [@](#): > > 1. Safety of transport canisters (per the videos, this appears to handled, although the “drop on spike” test was only from 40 inches, not sure if that meets/exceeds point force of common weapons like RPG’s, etc.) Again, you have to remember to consider the consequences of a breach. The standard the environmental industry wants to hold the industry to would be appropriate if a breach of one of these canisters meant a nuclear explosion, or the equivalent of a ‘dirty bomb’ attack on a city. But that’s not what would happen. Breach a canister, and you get a spill. Spills are very localized. Worst-case scenario is no worse than any number of other industrial accidents that can and do happen all the time. The canisters are designed to withstand typical crash scenarios, immersion in fire for long periods, attacks with typical small explosives, and other reasonable threats. I have no doubt someone could design a canister-piercing weapon. Maybe you could crack one open if you dropped it from a helicopter from a few thousand feet. Nothing is impervious. The question is whether they are protected enough to present a reasonable amount of risk. They are. > [@](#): > > Other than the video, it doesn’t seem like much actual information has been provided regarding the risks, only statements that say the risk is low. There have been links to all kinds of cites. You can find plenty more information on the net if you want to do a little research. Poeple here have cited their claims when asked. Further research is your responsibility. If you find information that contradicts what’s said here, post a link to it and we can debate it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/117 "2007-01-07T20:44:25Z")
[QUOTE=mstay] A terrorist attacking a nuclear waste transport with a TOW anti-tank missile would be the worst terrorist attack ever. First off, that’d be pretty hard to pull off. Second, as has already been said, a hole in the side of a transport vessal wouldn’t be that bad. If someone is right next to it yeah they may die… [/QUOTE] I know it’s not what you meant, but when I read this the first thing that came to mind was that a person standing next to a crate of marshmallows that was hit by a TOW missile probably isn’t going to be too happy, either. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/118 "2007-01-07T20:49:06Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I know it’s not what you meant, but when I read this the first thing that came to mind was that a person standing next to a crate of marshmallows that was hit by a TOW missile probably isn’t going to be too happy, either. [/QUOTE] I for one call for an immediate ban on marshmallows until we can resolve the risks of waste marshmallow storage! ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/119 "2007-01-07T21:35:05Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] **RaftPeople** , put it this way: what’s the absolute worst-case scenario for handling nuclear waste? [/quote] Lots of contaminated ground, air and water causing lots of cancer deaths for a long time (air would be short of course). Was this a serious question? > [@](#): > > If you did nothing more than pack it in steel drums and throw it into a hole in the Nevada desert, or into the Marianas trench, what could happen? Could anything really happen that would be planetary in scale? If you truly believe that dumping nuclear waste in a steel drum in the desert or into the ocean would not create serious health risks, then I can understand why you think opposition to nuclear power is irrational. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2007, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827/120 "2007-01-07T21:46:03Z")
[QUOTE=RaftPeople] Lots of contaminated ground, air and water causing lots of cancer deaths for a long time (air would be short of course). [/QUOTE] Right. So how is this different from fossil fuel pollution, aside from being several dozen orders of magnitude less common? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-environmental-movement-and-its-irrational-fear-of-nuclear-energy/386827.md?page=7)