You're Being Lied To About Nuclear Waste | Truth Complex

Comments · 2K

• BU

  @BusinessInsider · 11 months ago · pinned

  Read &quot;The Hanford Site is America&apos;s most contaminated nuclear location. See photos of its long, toxic past&quot;: <a href="https://trib.al/nJe5pMW">https://trib.al/nJe5pMW</a>

  77

• AN

  @Andyb431 · 11 months ago (edited)

  I find it amazing when people are shockingly saying &quot;but it will cost 100bn dollars&quot; to help save the planet, but when it comes to spending hundreds of billions on wars, that&apos;s not an issue at all

  1.7K

• EV

  @EvenTheScore · 11 months ago

  this was such a well made video, straight and to the point with chapters, thanks again

  10

• BR

  @brandonhenderson322 · 11 months ago

  Work at a nuke plant here and we are not running out of room for our dry storage cask. We have put all the fuel our plant has used in its 45+ years of running in less area than a football field. And yes you can literally stand right next to it and get less radiation than eating a banana.

  904

• DE

  @defenem73 · 11 months ago

  What&apos;s funny is that some environment activists that are scared of nuclear power are probably using misinformation from coal and oil businesses.

  171

• BI

  @bishonenchan · 11 months ago

  Thank you Finland for showing the world how things should be done!

  668

• KA

  @katb.3293 · 11 months ago

  All that&apos;s going through my head is the clip of Tom from Tom and Jerry, building railroad tracks as he&apos;s on the train on the unfinished track.

  3

• JO

  @john_in_phoenix · 11 months ago

  Yes, we actually used to recycle spent fuel. France does recycle 95% of their spent fuel. &quot;Spent&quot; fuel has actually only consumed about 2% of the actual fuel, but the byproducts of the fission must be extracted since they will actually spoil the reaction. Spent fuel is actually a resource that can be used. It&apos;s actually more expensive to recycle fuel than to mine and refine new fuel.

  276

• CA

  @cal920c · 11 months ago

  Saying we shouldn’t reprocess because we have lots of it is like saying we shouldn’t recycle plastic because we have lots of it.

  9

• MA

  @mackcullison6316 · 11 months ago (edited)

  I work at a nuclear fuel fabrication facility, across the street from Hanford, as a nuclear engineer. Nuclear waste is held in highly reliable zirconium cladding. Inside pools, or casks, behind armed guards, in remote places. <br><br>I like to shift any conversations about nuclear radiation to talk about waste from gasoline, because we just dump the waste into the atmosphere. Nuclear waste doesn’t actually really affect anybody. If you leave a car running in a garage, it can literally kill you within minutes. A single gallon of gasoline produces nearly 6000 gallons of CO2, which heats up atmosphere. Gasoline waste 60-80% of its energy as heat into our streets and cities. A single gallon of gasoline can contaminate a million gallons of water, and we can silently and blindly pump multiple 5-gallon buckets into our cars each time we “fill her up!” People cut their exhaust pipes off just-to-be-noticed. The conversation around nuclear waste is kind of null, shift the conversation back to crap that actually affect my every day life. . . The US burns nearly 50% of the world’s gasoline supply on our streets. Talk about a waste. Let’s talk about the literal forest burning down to the ground, while we use the other half to produce paper, in a world which doesn’t require paper anymore. Let’s talk about the single use plastics that literally contaminate our bodies. 100% of human testes have microplastics in them. Most people don’t even see nuclear waste in their lifetime, nor could they identify a nuclear containment building at a site if shown a picture. I’ve had nearly half my family die from cigarette use. There are 100s of people cruising around on nuclear submarines that will get less dose than background at any given moment. Oil is literally poisoning us, and we are still picketing nuclear waste, a technology that could have saved all of our lives. The technology that could push us safely into the future. <br><br>Underground nuclear weapons test actually contained the fission products. I think we are perfectly capable of storing nuclear waste

  400

• C.

  @c.valentinerose · 11 months ago

  Ummmm, We&apos;ve had above ground incidents at The Hanford Site.

  3

• ST

  @stijn2644 · 11 months ago (edited)

  Onkalo in Finland is ready for use. Currently there are canisters being filled ready to be placed inside the repository. The closed fuel cycle is the eventual permanent solution. <br>How weird is it that professor Macfarlane on the one hand says that we can&apos;t let the waste go to the next generation and in a following segment states that reprosessing is not needed. Let&apos;s not forget that current reprosessing technology is a first gen technology that stopped innovating in the 80s.<br>If we actually want a solution we will have to reproses the waste into fuel for fast reactors. <br><br>But hey as long as we just talk about it, other nations will develop the reactors that are going to solve this problem. For people actually interested into this tech, here are some reactors that have proven that it&apos;s technically possible.<br>BN600, BN-800, Phénix, Super Phénix, EBR-II, EBR-I, BREST-300, IMSRE

  96