> since my cutoff is pretty much at "any nuclear waste"
Really? So I guess there is not much point in talking to you further. (Although I guess other people are also reading these threads.)
It might help your case if you explained why, but I'm betting it's irrational fear, not anything you could explain.
Me, I prefer to measure my pollution in terms of damage caused, not fear. There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear.
Nah, fear isn't really the issue here, I would say that I have a rather calculated understanding of why I find radioactive waste so problematic (and since you asked, you'll have to endulge the full explanation).
For me, it comes down to what kind of pollution we are talking about and radioactive pollution is particularly nasty to me as it represents a chaotic pollution that is just exceptionally hard to deal with.
Let's say the simplest, non-chaotic, kind of pollution is "dirt on your shoe" - you know where it came from (that thing you just stepped in), you know where it is (you see it on your shoe), what it does (hardly anything, except look bad) and how to get it out (wash it off).
With radioactive pollution, knowing where the pollution is coming from can already be a tough job - if you have a known leak, sure, that's where it's coming from. But often, you have to use a Geiger counter to detect it in the first place and often times, you then still have to figure out where the actual source is.
Where it went is mostly a statistical science, which is only comforting if your arm chair is not close to the accident in question. If it is, it's highly distressing.
Next up, it's still completely up for graps what it does - for humans, it can be anything from a challenged immune system to instant death, depending on the dose. (Although the latter is reserved for those rare occurances where you happen to hang out with the direct fallout of an exploding atom bomb, I believe.) Most of the time, in an accident, you only determine how bad it was after the fact. At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before).
How to get it out is where it gets even worse - most of the time, you scrap together everything that you determined to be affected in step two and put it in sealed containers, which isn't helpful if that thing is 'most of your own cells' (although the people around you will differ on that opinion). Your most likely prospect in terms of any kind of unusual exposure is to die slightly earlier and a lot shittier than you had anticipated.
In conclusion, I would say that it's more of a "we simply don't fully understand what we unleash, so let's develop what we do understand" concern. Not a "omg, a castor drove through Italy, I'm gonna get cancer tomorrow" fear.
> There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear.
That almost made me LOL - Why is it "because of people like [me]"? Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
> and since you asked, you'll have to endulge the full explanation
That's fine.
And I read your explanation, and while it is coherent, I don't agree with it, and I find it to be fear based, not science based.
Of all pollutions radiation is by far the easiest to detect and track (which is why people hate it so much - it's very easy to find). Other types of pollution are much harder to track, so less is made known about them, and they get less attention - but they cause more damage!
And that's in a nutshell my position: Other pollution is worse. I accept that there will always be some pollution, and I seek the best.
I like that we can find radiation so easily: It means we can clean it when necessary. Other pollutions can't be found so easily, so no one is told when they get exposed to it. Since they are never told, they never worry - but it still causes damage!
I do my best to keep track of other pollutions, I subscribe to air quality alerts. If radiation was released in amounts that cause the exact same damage as the bad air, you could bet people would be screaming. Yet, non-radiation pollutions (mostly) get a pass unless they get really bad.
I tell people that the air quality is bad today and I get mocked, or more often just indifference. Do people not care? I should tell people there is lots of radiation in the air instead..... :)
> At minimum, it always carries a risk of mucking with your DNA or giving you a higher chance of cancer down the road (we have differed on how "horrifying" this prospect is, before).
You misunderstood me. Cancer is bad - my point was that nuclear power is less likely to cause cancer in both, the general public, and the miners. So nuclear power is not horrifying - it's a blessing since it causes less cancer.
Pollution from other energy sources also causes cancer, and causes more of it than nuclear power. Nuclear power gets the headlines, sure, but the day to day poison is everything else.
> Why is it "because of people like [me]"?
When I said "people like" I meant "people opposed to nuclear power", which you are (seem to be), and therefor you are like them.
> Maybe it's time for me to get off your lawn?
If it was just you then fine. But it's a lot more people than just you, and most of them have an even worse fear/knowledge ratio than you, and are impossible to argue with.
> Other types of pollution are much harder to track
I was trying to explain to you why I find radioactive pollution unacceptable, replying by telling me that there are worse types of pollution does not really add to the discussion.
You seem hell-bent on making this discussion into one about choosing the lesser evil. But the article is about the exact opposite - it's about getting out of that cycle and investing in a true alternative.
> Pollution from other energy sources also causes cancer, and causes more of it than nuclear power. Nuclear power gets the headlines, sure, but the day to day poison is everything else.
I find wind turbines to cause very little cancer.
> When I said "people like" I meant "people opposed to nuclear power", which you are (seem to be), and therefor you are like them.
No, I understand that, but why do you want them off your lawn? By their opposition to nuclear they automatically made the air worse and cause pollution action days? Strikes me as a tad simplistic.
Really? So I guess there is not much point in talking to you further. (Although I guess other people are also reading these threads.)
It might help your case if you explained why, but I'm betting it's irrational fear, not anything you could explain.
Me, I prefer to measure my pollution in terms of damage caused, not fear. There is a pollution action day in my city right now because of people like you, and I'm not happy about it. I want them to shut down all hydrocarbon electric plants (save the hydrocarbons for cars), and switch everything to nuclear.