I'm not sure where I land on this one. I'm usually on team science and when you have this many scientific backers that's hard to ignore. On the other hand, I'm in Washington where Hanford has caused us many dangerous issues with no end in sight. And this quote
- We own this site. Half of the waste is on this site already.
There have been some educational discussions on Hubski about nuclear energy (example below), I'm curious what people here think.
This has been all over the news in Detroit the past week, but interestingly, my friend who lives in Windsor hadn't heard about it yesterday. I think the CBC has been intentionally avoiding it (and I say that with literally zero evidence to back me up). Anyway, I'm also usualy on team science with these things, but come the fuck on. Is there a larger, rockier wasteland on planet earth than the like 90% of Ontario that isn't within spitting distance of the Great Lakes? It just seems silly that they even have to debate this when the scientifically safe and publicly tenable locations seen so limitless.
Jesus, just dump it in some abandoned mine shaft in Sudbury for goodness sake. Somewhere, you know, AWAY from large bodies of water? I can imagine that moving the waste any distance is probably a huge headache, so leaving it where it is (on the site) makes a lot of sense too. Idunno. Is it going to affect the water quality?
Weird, I haven't heard anything about this. However, as a Michigander, and one that lives in the east, so Lake Huron isn't too far, I support this. I trust it's far enough and that waste weak enough that it won't contaminate drinking water. It's a pretty deep mine, they're talking, and I don't really see how there's much worry it could contaminate the water, let alone to the point that it would make the water dangerous for people. It's a mile away from the shore, which might be short in driving distance, but when you think about how deep this stuff is, and how good water itself is at mitigating radiation it does come into contact with, I don't really understand the worry. Even if there is a leak, it would have to be pretty serious to actually reach the shore, and I trust if the company did make mistakes, there's enough safeguards in these systems that it would mitigate how much is leaked. These reactors haven't been operating too far away, either, and they haven't managed to make our water undrinkable. And that's the stuff I'm really worried about, because that's where a meltdown is possible. In any case, I don't think the site is all that odd, if you've read the article. It's near the reactor, they already own the land, and geologically, it's a very safe place to put it. I think they made their point very succinctly. And I feel it's pretty disingenuous to only quote them on their financial argument when they've had geological surveys, on top of the fact that the shorter the distance you transport radioactive materials over, the safer it is.
My post mentions the scientific studies before the snip I quoted, so I don't understand how that's disingenuous. The point wasn't to summarize the article, I assume people who are interested will read it themselves. I was adding a question about financial motives which the article does not discuss in depth. Anyway, besides the sass, thanks for the perspective. It's weird to me it wouldn't be more covered in local news.
I thought the article quotes from opponents were rather poor, too. This sounds like a line from an Onion article. Maybe there weren't any better quotes? I'm team science on this, too. If there are flaws in the design, the opponents should highlight them. Instead it sounds like a classic "not in my backyard" argument. I have a hard time giving any credence to an argument based only in fear.“They want us to come and be educated. It’s a bit scary to me that somebody would want me to come to a meeting to be educated.”