Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "AI rediscovers Einstein's Time Dilation and Kepler's 3rd Law" video.
-
6
-
@billirwin3558 Everything you said is based on sentiments rather than facts. Falsely accusing him of being an apologist shows you can refute his fact based arguments.
Firstly you are exaggerating the danger of nuclear waste. Not only the amount of waste is very little, they are rather hard to "spread". Most of them can't really ruin water supplies even if you dunk them there. In fact they were kept in pools of that are safe enough for people to actually swim in it. Waste from current and decommissioned nuclear plant are still safely tucked within their impromptu containment site.
Secondly, were have a lot more uranium than you claimed. Theoretically there is enough uranium on Earth alone to power us (at today's rate ) for thousand of years with naturally occurring reserves.. With methods like fuel recycling and fast-breeder reactors, this can be extended to tens of thousand of years, longer than our own recorded history. That is we focused on uranium alone and not more abundant sources like thorium or explore outer Earths resources .
Thirdly, you are exaggerating the severity nuclear accidents. There have have been only two major reactor accident in history of nuclear power generation an only one of them caused over 99.99...% of all the casualties. Zero people died from radiation exposure at Fukushima and so far only one person have died of cancer suspected (no confirmation) caused by the incident . As I said, more people died every years form solar and wind that nuclear reactor incidents in the past couple of decades. This is despite that the majority of those 400+ rectors are based on obsolete technology that is almost a century old. Newer reactors are specially designed so that it would be physically impossible fore it to have a meltdown, thus being far safer.
Fourthly , we have method to reduce nuclear waste. Not only do currents gen reactor produce less waste, but there even ones that are designed such that actually "ate" the waste produced by previous reactors. Saying that there is no solution just shows you really haven't looked into it.
Finally , your statement about rare earths metal are false. Lithium , nickel, cobalt and many other are recyclable. Even spent uranium and many other reactor waste fare recyclable to an extents.
3
-
2
-
1
-
@billirwin3558 It seems you haven't check verify your info for a long time as they are incorrect or outdated.
The whole how safe is swimming a nuclear pool thing was covered by many scientist and science communicators . Even xkcd have covered this in one of his comics.
The whole "nuclear waste will contaminate water" thing came from people who doesn't understand how waste material is stored and which one of them can contaminate water supply is exposed (HINT: the really high level long term waste can't).
The people who calculated the reserve of uranium based their calculation on the premise of if entire worlds today switched to uranium fission, not just current usage.
It nuclear carbon neutral? Yes, it is as carbon neutral as solar and wind. Much better than fossils fuel , that is for certain . Our biggest threat came from fossil fuel driven climate change. Unlike the fears of nuclear power , this is justified fear.
Where are these fast reactors ? Currently there are two project that are bein built in Canada (the ARC-100 and The Moltex SSR-W) that "eats" waste. On the the one that are running, the CANDU reactor can run on nuclear waste tough they typically don't.
Based on your plane analogy (BTW, Western reactors are designed to survive planes crashing into them) I take that it mean you also wants plane to be banned because they can't be made 100% safe and commercial plane are vulnerable in wars as seen by MH17 flight? The war in Ukraine showed us that military power really don't wants to directly target nuclear power plants. Even the Russian attacks on the electric grid targeted other type or power plants, relay station and transformer rather than nuclear plants themselves. Furthermore it take concentrated military effort to actually destroy a nuclear power plants as one of two stray artillery shell won't for the job. So far the only military who have targeted and destroyed nuclear reactor in a military strike are the Israeli ,and both their targets in Syria and Iraq were still in construction at that time .
Your pharaoh analogy don't hold up because the pharaohs don't recycle their mummies nor do they keep the one they can't recycle in geologically inaccessible vaults. Any civilisation that have the technology to access and crack these vaults would also have the tech to detect radiation.
If accidents and casualties are not the measure in which you count thing as safe , then what is it? It should be something that is based on facts because sentiment really isn't rational or even logical. It seem you are the one here who is redefining safe.
If we go by your logic about recycling, then why bother recycling thing like aluminium, steel and copper? Entropy ensure we can't 100% recycle them anyway.
1