Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the How-About-Colour-Changing...People? dept.

Recently on Last Week Tonight John Oliver discussed the problem of nuclear waste storage, which despite a number of attempts to designate a central storage site is still stored in "temporary" sites throughout the US.

The idea of a central nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain was raised again. However one additional problem, highlighted by a consultation in 1981 by the US Department of Energy, was how to design radiation warnings which could be understood tens of thousands of years into the future even though language, culture, and iconography may undergo significant changes.

And on that note, here's an old guardian article on how colour-changing cats might be the solution.

In 1984, writer Françoise Bastide and semiotician Paolo Fabbri suggested the answer could lie in breeding animals that "react with discoloration of the skin when exposed" to radiation. "[Their] role as a detector of radiation should be anchored in cultural tradition by introducing a suitable name (eg, 'ray cat')."

And following up on that is the project The Ray Cat Solution, in conjunction with Bricobio, the Montréal biology maker community:

New Hampshire Institute of Art's Type 1 class has joined forces with Bricobio and The Raycat Solution to help insert Raycats into the cultural vocabulary.

While Bricobio works towards genetically altering cats so they change color when in the presence of radioactive material, the NHIA Type 1 class is working to insert the idea that if a cat changes color, that space might be dangerous to others.

There is an associated film on the subject on Vimeo.

Originally spotted through the 99% Invisible Episode "Ten Thousand Years"


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Geezer on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:55AM (2 children)

    by Geezer (511) on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:55AM (#559749)

    CATS: All your base are belong to us.

    CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:43PM (#559838)

      CATS: All your base are belong to us.

      CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.

      What you say?!?

    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Monday August 28 2017, @12:08AM

      by driverless (4770) on Monday August 28 2017, @12:08AM (#559964)

      In any case we don't need special color-changing cats, we already have color-changing people. Once their skin goes mottled, or grey, or green, you know that there's too much radioactivity around.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:49AM (20 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:49AM (#559759) Journal

    There is no need for the 10,000 years thing. In 500, the hottest of the waste will be inert. The remainder will be approximately as radioactive as it was when we dug it out of the ground in the first place. If we actually reprocess the waste to separate the 95% valuable fuel from the 5% dangerous waste, we don't even have to re-dilute the long term stuff to match the density found in nature.

    As a reference point, if we can read Shakespeare now, people in 500 years should be able to read simple modern multi-lingual signs.

    The 10,000 year thing (some even claim 100,000 years) was started by fear mongers who needed a really scary number to convince people to just abandon nuclear.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by qzm on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:01AM (4 children)

      by qzm (3260) on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:01AM (#559769)

      Or perhaps we are going to go around and make such labeling requirements for all the existing natural radiation sources that are as strong or stronger (after the short half-life items degerate)?
      Or perhaps the US should just clue up and reprocess its waste, like the rest of the world?

      Really, the US is looking more and more like the worlds largest kindergarten, complete with tantrums, over protective parents, and teachers just there for the paycheck.

      Grow up, please children - the rest of the world are laughing at you.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by qzm on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:14AM (1 child)

        by qzm (3260) on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:14AM (#559773)

        Sorry bad form to reply to myself of course, just to add a few more details.

        a) I just noticed the 'New Hampshire Institute of Art's Type 1 class', now this BS makes a WHOLE lot more sense.

        and

        b) 10,000 years, and they have not considered their genetics efforts on the cats may drift? really?

        Not the sharpest knives in the drawer I am suspecting, no doubt this is primarily a state $$$$ funding fishing trip.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @02:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @02:30PM (#560251)

          b) 10,000 years, and they have not considered their genetics efforts on the cats may drift? really?

          Especially given that there's not much evolutionary pressure to keep that colour-change trait. If you want that trait to survive, it must be advantageous to the cat, as in, make it more likely for the cat to survive if it has that trait.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @07:05PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @07:05PM (#559896)

        Your argument is fallacious.

        The problem is in the math. The volume of the earth vs. the volume of the biosphere. The difference is vast. If you put all the most radioactive material at the level of the biosphere, there would be no biosphere.

        We have been extracting the richest yellowcake etc we can find, and purifying it down by the tonne. We are as a species capable of obliterating the biosphere with this pattern writ large. This is the same problem nuclear war presents.

        So your argument is dangerously wrong in perspective.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday August 28 2017, @05:52AM

          by sjames (2882) on Monday August 28 2017, @05:52AM (#560072) Journal

          Ans we are also capable of re-diluting it and putting it back where we found it, if necessary.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by tonyPick on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:23AM (10 children)

      by tonyPick (1237) on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:23AM (#559789) Homepage Journal

      The remainder will be approximately as radioactive as it was when we dug it out of the ground in the first place.

      Problem the first - the stuff going into the reactor is heavily refined - the stuff in the ground is diluted with other elements: When it comes out it's still heavily concentrated, and not suitable to be stuck back in the ground

      Problem the second - Activation products. The actual generation process creates a number of free neutrons, which are absorbed and produce some nasty transuranic elements - So the HLW coming out is far nastier than the U-235 & 238 that went in. Obvious example: Spent fuel is about 1% Plutonium-239, which has a Halflife in the 24KYear range, and is not the kind of thing you want to inhale.

      started by fear mongers who needed a really scary number to convince people to just abandon nuclear.

      That would be the US DOE? The NRC? Europe?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:25PM (3 children)

        by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:25PM (#559809) Journal

        Spent fuel is about 1% Plutonium-239, which has a Halflife in the 24KYear range, and is not the kind of thing you want to inhale.

        A very common natural uranium biproduct is radon. In difference from plutonium radon is a gas. And radon is some stuff you don't want to inhale but have to deal with whenever you mine in uranium-rich areas (like most places with granite). (Btw, in order to inhale put you'd need to grind it and breathe it in before it setlles since last agitation)

        Oh, and it is pretty insane to bury 1% Pu239 fuel, this is roughly NEU-fuel and should be reprocessed (or just sign an agreement with the canadians that they are allowed to use it and ship it back to you in 20 years - CANDU can take that stuff with only a repackaging to fit their fuel-bundles)

        Regardig the entire concentrated/diluted, either downblend it with DU (or grind it up and mix/sinter it with Th, or Si, or C) or just don't care. While still being concentrated you'd need a civilisation able to figure out how to went deepish mines while still not having figured out radioactivity for it tp be a hazard, in our civilisation those things happened just a few decades apart.

        • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:57PM (2 children)

          by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:57PM (#559846) Journal

          Damn autocorrect.

          (Btw, in order to inhale put you'd need to grind it and breathe it in before it setlles since last agitation)

          Should be
          (Btw, in order to inhale Pu you'd need to grind it and breathe it in before it setlles since last agitation)
          (change is: s/put/Pu/)

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:03PM (1 child)

            by frojack (1554) on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:03PM (#559865) Journal

            Sorry, I din't notice that one. I was still thumbing the dictionary for "setlles".

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:43PM

              by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday August 27 2017, @04:43PM (#559868) Journal

              Funny (really, I'm currently chuckling).

              Yeah, I had a few other as well, but that was the only that left out information.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 27 2017, @06:46PM

        by sjames (2882) on Sunday August 27 2017, @06:46PM (#559893) Journal

        As I hinted at, we would need to dilute the stuff back down, perhaps we could mix it with the tailings from the mine where we got it. OR, we could reprocess it and put it right back into a nuclear reactor. A number of reactors don't mind if we leave the actinides in, which greatly simplifies the reprocessing and acts as a poison that makes it unsuitable for diversion to weapons.

        Throw the Pu in with the fuel. The reactor will take care of the problem.

        The NRC should change their seal to an anthropomorphic chicken wetting it's pants. They jumped the shark decades ago.

        The really problematic nuclear waste is the stuff left over from making bombs. 100% of the waste related incidents in the U.S. were from bomb waste.

        As for radioactive things you don't want to breathe, Radon is a much bigger problem as other have pointed out.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @08:24PM (#559909)

        Obvious example: Spent fuel is about 1% Plutonium-239, which has a Halflife in the 24KYear range, and is not the kind of thing you want to inhale.

        No, you don't want to inhale it, mainly because it's toxic like many other heavy elements, e.g. lead. But unless someone gets the bright idea to use tetra-ethyl-plutonium as a fuel additive, there's not much reason you would inhale it. And if you did inhale trace amounts, bad as that would be, when it does decay it goes straight to relatively harmless 235U. Shit like radium is much worse -- not only does it decay much faster, but it decays through a whole series of junk including radon, which, being a gas, merrily bubbles through your bloodstream causing cancers everywhere. Cesium-137 is horrible because it forms salts that dissolve in water and thus get everywhere (oh yeah, it decays way faster, too). As these things go, plutonium is practically friendly.

        I get it, 24000 is a big scary number. And it's truly daunting to imagine engineering a containment system that will remain safe through tens of thousands of years of unknown natural and man-made disasters, prevent/dissuade post-apocalyptic illiterates from busting it open with sledgehammers, and all that. But if you actually understand this stuff, that big number is good -- the fact that it has a long half-life means that decay events are rare, meaning low intensity of radiation. There's just no way around it, high intensity means short half-life, long half-life means low intensity. The factor of 106 difference in half-life between, say, iodine-131 and plutonium-239 dwarfs the variation between decay chains. (Something like 238U's radium series has between 10 and 20 stages of decay products, so that's a total of 10x as many particles/rays emitted per half-life as something with one or two stages like 239Pu or 131I.)

        The low intensity of that 1% 239Pu means that, once you store unprocessed spent fuel long enough for the short-lived isotopes to decay away, the multi-thousand-year isotopes that are left just aren't a very big problem. Sure, it wouldn't be good to build a house out of them, and worse to grind them up and disperse them in the air, but they're not scary like the medium-short half-life products that can leach into groundwater and deliver serious radiation doses.

        GP is technically wrong, of course, as the highest figures I know for uranium ore are single-digit kBq/g, while natural uranium is 180 kBq/g, and 1% 239Pu is 23MBq/g; that's a factor of 104 difference to "when we dug it out", and a factor of 10 even if he meant refined, but unenriched, uranium metal. But compared to, say, 137Cs's 3.2TBq/g (yep, tera), it's far closer to uranium ore than to spent fuel straight out of the reactor.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:18PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:18PM (#559945)

        not the kind of thing you want to inhale

        Yup.
        ...nor ingest in any way.
        The only sensible thing to do with this stuff is to permanently isolate it from the ecosystem.
        Keep it out of the air, water, and soil.
        Especially, keep it out of the food supply.

        Problem the third: There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation.
        Ionizing radiation is carcinogenic and mutagenic.
        Getting it -inside- your body, where it can be transported to vital|especially vulnerable organs increases its danger.

        ...and the thresholds that governments publish are completely arbitrary.
        Again: There is no "safe" dose of ionizing radiation.

        Note also that when portions of Fukushima Prefecture were discovered to be above the published gov't threshold, the gov't simply raised the threshold number.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Monday August 28 2017, @09:42AM (2 children)

          by Aiwendil (531) on Monday August 28 2017, @09:42AM (#560124) Journal

          Problem the third: There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation.

          Only if you use the LNT - which pretty much noone takes seriously at low doses.
          But just for fun let's assume there are no safe dose - then why aren't people dropping like flies from the UV-light in the sun (even at brief exposure), the alpha and beta radiation from the normal decaychains of pretty much anything radioactive (look at all the C14, K40 (the stuff that makes bananas used as a fun dose unit] or radon (avaiable anywhere where there is less than about half a meter/2ft of dirt between bedrock and air).
          People are constantly exposed to between 1.2 and 20mSv (excluding the extremes).
          Heck , even humans emit ionizing radiation.

          Note also that when portions of Fukushima Prefecture were discovered to be above the published gov't threshold, the gov't simply raised the threshold number.

          As long as it stays below 50mSv/yr then why even care? Seriously. Heck, even up to 100mSv can be argued as safe but at that dose there are _signs_ of _slightly_ increased risk (less than from smoking, or being in a city, or eating badly, but still a risk)

          Iirc the japanese used an initial limit of about 1mSv/year, this is less than wastelands such as scandinavia, uk, spain, denver, japan pre-fukushima (avg 1.5mSv/yr, before adding artificial sources, global avg is about 2.4mSv/yr).. then raised it to 10mSv/yr, this is beaches in goa and brazil and lots of inhabited places (like parts of spain, finland, canada, sweden, wales), and then to 20mSv/yr which still is places like beaches in brazil and natural hot springs.

          Quite frankly there are no sane reason to worry about less than 20mSv/yr and at 50mSv/yr you might not want to work with radiation or get a chest x-ray more frequently than every second year.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @08:29PM (#560478)

            To repeat: There is no "safe" dose of ionizing radiation.
            ...and poisoning from ionizing radiation is insidious.

            There is the story of the 2 year old who was exposed in the Hiroshima bombing. [google.com]
            For years and years she seemed normal.
            She was even a top athlete.

            At age 12, leukemia caught up with her.
            In order to not be a financial burden to her already-impoverished family, she chose to forgo pain medication.
            She is known for her effort to produce 1000 origami cranes [google.com]
            (She didn't survive long enough to complete the task.)

            The really nasty thing about radiation poisoning is how long it can take to knock you on your ass.
            ...with nuclear zealots denying the link to the cause.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:34AM

              by Aiwendil (531) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:34AM (#560635) Journal

              No - we are not denying the link. We are only using "safe" in a non-absolute manner (kinda like how we say that it is safe to use a marble kitchentop [~70Bq/kg]).

              But the Hiroshima-bombing - that was an intense dose and people within line of sight got a hefty dose (on average people got a low dose - due to few being in line of sight and not being killed by the shockwave). So, likely not a low dose incident.

              In her case it seems she was 2km/1.2 miles from the blast (that was in the area of getting a hefty dose without being killed by the shockwave) which is the worst case. Then it also was stated she was caught in the black rain, by this point we can't _know_ if it was the radioactivity from the bomb or something otherwise carcinogenic that was pulled in (black rain would occur even without radiation beyond heat), but it probably was due to radiation due to being hit with a high dose.

              And yes, leukemia in children is one of the few things that increase readily (risk roughly doubles iirc) at higher doses.

              But - do note - there is no data that shows increased risk _at_ _low_ _doses_ (below 100mSv/yr, but there is suspicion in the 50-100mSv/yr range).

              As I did try to point out more lighthearted. You are constantly exposed to ionizing radiation, and you ingest and inhale a lot of stuff that produces it (only the potassium in you is at about 4kBq), and life has evolved under even harsher radioactive conditions.

              The reason why we dislike LNT is that it is based on datapoints at high dose rates. To point out just how silly that is; imagine that you'd where going to drink 40l / 10gal of water. Imagine what would happen if you tried to do that in an afternoon, now imagine if you tried 20l / 5 gal (don't do either, the first will kill you, the latter might kill you). Now you have two datapoints do extrapolate how many people you'd expect to die when drinking 2l / 0.5gal in an afternoon. That is basically what LNT is.

              If you'd want to argue about low doses then point me to low dose rates. Or explain why cancer is about 20% as common in denmark as in sweden or germany (denmark has less background radiation than both, and germany has higher solar influx). The issue at low rates is that if there are any net increase it do not beat the noiselevel.

              "...and poisoning from ionizing radiation is insidious." not more than from anything else, a low dose that gets ahead of the body's repair mechanism will kill slowly and a high dose will kill quickly. Personally I don't consider a day of diarrhea and vomiting before you die (acute radiation poisoning at extreme dose (over 30Gy), see, doses matter both ways) to be insidious but rather blatant.

              Tl;dr - at high doses radiation increases cancer risk, at low doses nothing points to increased risk (yet), and at extreme doses it kills quickly.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:41PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:41PM (#559814)

      Where exactly do you get your ridiculous 500 years number? The official number is 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. [1]
      Also 500 years is a rather long time too, probably way too long.

      And can you read Shakespeare? Really? Here's his collected works [2] I mean those are certainly mostly English words but what on Earth does the prose mean... I wouldn't know, most people wouldn't.

      1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste#Long_term_management [wikipedia.org]
      2 http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/1/0/100/100.txt [mirrorservice.org]

      • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:34PM

        by JNCF (4317) on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:34PM (#559831) Journal

        They still teach Shakespeare in highschool. There are things that a naive modern reader would interpret incorrectly, but it is generally readable. If Shakespeare wrote an explicit warning about a hazardous substance, we'd get the gist of it.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday August 28 2017, @02:43AM

        by sjames (2882) on Monday August 28 2017, @02:43AM (#560024) Journal

        Yes, the official numbers from the people advocating the boondoggle are 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. I'm looking at the time for the fission products to decay to background levels.

        Pretty much every high school student is expected to read a bit of Shakespeare. It is slower going than a modern novel, but not at all hard to understand. Is English not your first language perhaps? I did suggest multi-lingual signs.

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday August 27 2017, @06:56PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Sunday August 27 2017, @06:56PM (#559895)

      Did you or any of other posters in this thread actually bother to look at the source, or did you just skim the summary and pop out a knee jerk reaction post?
      The John Oliver bit is a very humorous poke at how incompetent our society is at handling nuclear waste.

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:55AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:55AM (#559766) Journal

    So we associate the colour change of those rats with rays, and therefore danger. Let's assume the tales get told over the generations as intended.

    However every tale that gets told over generations inevitably morph. So maybe in ten thousand years, the story goes as follows:

    You should always take care of ray cats, as they have the ability to kill humans with deadly invisible rays. Normally they are just amicable beings, but when they are endangered, they will have no hesitation to kill. Fortunately there is one sure indication that this will happen: If they are angered enough to kill, their colour will change.

    One day, the colour of the cats will change because of a leak. There will be two groups of people: One group will try to please those cats, so they lose their anger. The other group will try to kill off all those cats, as they are clearly a danger to humans. No group will avoid the area the cats were in because the knowledge that it is the area which sends the rays, and not the cats, was lost. When humans start dying because of the radiation, both groups will accuse each other of being responsible: The ray cat huggers will claim that the ray cat killers are responsible because they are angering those cats even more by trying to kill them, while the ray cat killers will claim the ray cat huggers are responsible because they protect those cats, who then can go on killing humans with their invisible rays. Probably they'll even fight each other for the sake of humanity, causing even more dead humans.

    Actually that sounds like great story material.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:59AM (3 children)

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:59AM (#559768) Homepage

    how to design radiation warnings which could be understood tens of thousands of years into the future even though language, culture, and iconography may undergo significant changes.

    And on that note, here's an old guardian article on how colour-changing cats might be the solution.

    If everyone's forgotten what the old radiation warnings mean, how are they going to know why kitty's turned green?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:26PM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:26PM (#559825) Journal

      If everyone's forgotten what the old radiation warnings mean, how are they going to know why kitty's turned green?

      Good point. They should have use apes. Or spiders. Or defenders, a league of them. Or any Marvel cartoon characters - those will be immortal, 'cause their so stupidly childish, they'll be remembered for centuries. They'll permeate the population ethos and profoundly infuse it, so to speak.

      Kitties may do, though, iff Marvel decide to dedicate a series to them - in print, HDTV and holovision. Complete with 4-5 full time movies.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday August 28 2017, @01:48AM (1 child)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Monday August 28 2017, @01:48AM (#560001) Journal

        If there's money in it, Marvel movies will still be being made in 1,000 years.

        Just put the nuclear logos and warnings in the credits.

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @01:53AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @01:53AM (#560007)

          If there's money in it, Marvel movies will still be being made in 1,000 years.

          Stupidity is guaranteed to make money, ergo...

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:17AM (3 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday August 27 2017, @10:17AM (#559774) Journal

    response by nuclear scientist [googleusercontent.com] to John Oliver's Last Week Tonight piece on nuclear waste.
    The TL;DR version: one-sided, didn't talk to nuclear experts, only to folks against nuclear.

    (yes, it's a comedy show. It's also good to keep the fact that they're not paragons of objective reporting in your mind at times.)

    PS: I saw and enjoyed the nuclear waste piece. But I do think it's worth noting that the piece shouldn't be taken as gospel.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by tonyPick on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:34AM (2 children)

      by tonyPick (1237) on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:34AM (#559791) Homepage Journal

      Saw that piece in forbes earlier in the week, and thought it completely missed the point of the Oliver show, It spends a lot of time defending points that Oilver didn't make, and doesn't address the central issue, which is that the consensus for the past 50 years or so has been that the US needs a reliable long term storage facility, but hasn't got around to actually building one yet.

      Actually this comment on HN put it better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15108364 [ycombinator.com]

      John Oliver's point--which I will note had absolutely nothing to do with the safety of nuclear sites despite this article going off the path to defend them--is that while we have a strategy to store nuclear waste (with a designated national site for doing so), we haven't actually executed on that plan after many decades. His piece was not "anti-nuclear", and if someone wants to show that his arguments are wrong they also would be flying in the face of the scientists who put together the national plan.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:11PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 27 2017, @12:11PM (#559805) Journal

        is that while we have a strategy to store nuclear waste (with a designated national site for doing so), we haven't actually executed on that plan after many decades.

        And blaming government for "waiting" rather than NIMBYism. We haven't executed on that plan because a small special interest group with a strong interest gets further than a general public with a diffuse interest. I think it'll take a significant waste leak event before that changes. Oh well.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 28 2017, @12:46PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday August 28 2017, @12:46PM (#560196) Homepage
        The forbes piece is also hyperbolic to the point of error: "uranium, the heaviest element on Earth prior to 1940" (where "heaviest" is a link to a page on density).

        Uranium has a density of ~19.0 g/cm3. Platinum has a density of 21.45 g/cm3, Iridium 22.56 g/cm3, Osmium 22.59 g/cm3, Rhenium 21.02 g/cm3, even Tungsten's 19.25 g/cm3 and Gold's 19.30 g/cm3. These predate the synthesis of neptunium and plutonium by over a century.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @02:23PM (#559850)

    Waste is a marketing term to get people to pay you to take their fuel from them.

  • (Score: 2) by srobert on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:53PM

    by srobert (4803) on Sunday August 27 2017, @03:53PM (#559864)

    Now that Harry Reid is no longer the Senate Democratic leader to block the plan, the rest of the country can resume working out the details for how to dump its nuclear waste in Nevada. This is an example of why we have a constitutional compromise between representation proportioned by population and by state, both in the national legislature with its two houses, and the Presidency via the electoral college. It's an effort to prevent the majority of people in this country, who live in ten states, from treating the other forty states as expendable places with expendable people. Yes, I know the history of it, and the purpose it served in its origin, mostly connected to the preservation of slavery. But in the modern world, it still serves a reasonable purpose. The people who live in the forty states would be damned fools if they voted to get rid of it. And that is why the electoral college isn't going to go away any time soon. Likely, Nevada is going to get crapped on despite this.
    Anyway, the next fight where the little states are going to need more than proportional representation will be over water rights. Maybe we'll have better luck then.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Sunday August 27 2017, @05:37PM

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday August 27 2017, @05:37PM (#559881) Journal

    A sure indicator of impending doom is the manifestation of semioticians.

    --
    Account abandoned.
(1)