Comment by lukan
5 days ago
I apologize for my tone.
But I live in a former soviet state area with lots of chemical and radioactive waste (uran mining). Also there once was a radioactive cloud over my childhood playground. And some first and second hand stories from miners, doctors, .. and I engage with the topic since many years.
So yes, I was of the impression that you said radioactive waste is no big deal and I know that is not true.
" But it's not that big of a deal, compared to mercury, arsenic, PFAS, etc., etc."
But here let's agree to disagree. The point is anyway, do we want to produce more of it, knowing how faulty and corrupt humans can be?
Or rather reduce toxic substances where we can?
Miners underground get exposed to a lot dust particles and radioactive radon gas (even miners in non-uranium mines, like underground coal mining). There is a lot of uranium underground, which over time decays to radon gas.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9940829/
Coal dust and crystalline silica dust from underground mining causes long term damage to lungs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_lung_disease
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis
For uranium mining a lot more stricter radon monitoring and air ventilation has been implemented in recent decades.
Example of part uranium mining: https://www.bfs.de/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/BfS/EN/2023/0915...
Current uranium mining: https://www.orano.group/en/nuclear-expertise/orano-s-sites-a...
https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/radon-...
Less toxic stuff is always good. My point is just that the conversation around nuclear waste is weird and it seems like it's due to flaws in human perception, where "tens of thousands of years" feels worse than "forever," and "a 70ft cube" feels bigger than "makes an entire category of food unsafe to eat in large quantities." It's hard to have a good conversation about what kind of energy is best with this backwards thinking being so prevalent.