←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
cramcgrab[dead post] ◴[] No.45225173[source]
[flagged]
kulahan ◴[] No.45225185[source]
It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-enriched (renewable).
replies(4): >>45225270 #>>45225336 #>>45225338 #>>45225528 #
blueflow ◴[] No.45225336[source]
> it's easy to store (literally kitty litter)

I showed your comment to someone who is currently writing their PhD on how to store nuclear waste safely. I barely understood half of what they said in the following rant, but they referenced the situation of the Sellafield site several times.

replies(2): >>45225383 #>>45225419 #
1. qwe----3 ◴[] No.45225383[source]
You realize people in the 1950s were less careful than now?
replies(1): >>45225407 #
2. blueflow ◴[] No.45225407[source]
Yes, i have been listening to it and its consequences for the last 20 minutes.