Hacker News Reader

Comment by calibas | Hacker News Reader

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is.

Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

View on HN

It's very worrying to see comments like this become more and more common on HN.

Yes, I will take the waste. If it's in the containers we've developed specifically for this purpose, yes. It beats the current situation in the US where everyone stores waste on site because politicians can't decide where to put it because of people like you.

Modern waste, with proper precautions, is safe for long term disposal and storage. I cannot stress this enough.

If you don't believe me, this website has plenty of information regarding nuclear power, straight from the source. It is developed and run by the UN. Based on your misinformation, I strongly urge you to pore over this content and then attempt to reevaluate your own question.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/Information-Library.aspx

What did I say that is even remotely misinformation?

Nuclear power is safe "with proper precautions", I completely agree. The problem is that it hasn't even been a week since we've proven proper precautions are not being taken.

https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

And anti-nuclear sentiment isn't something new, don't pretend like it's some kind of worrying trend.

> world-nuclear.org

There is nothing more sad out there than linking to a homepage the nuclear lobby uses to drive this artificial nuclear hype we've seen here in the last months.

The page is run by the UN. Who, in your opinion, would be a more reputable source?

What makes you think this site would be "run by the UN"? The WNA is a nuclear industry lobbying organization. Nothing more, nothing less.

My personal experience with interacting with the WNA revolves around their interactions with the WNU, which is the World Nuclear University. It's a partnership between the WNA, IAEA, and others. Their goal is to promote education in the field and having significant experience with the WNU, and having noticed no irregularities, it would be very unlikely if the WNA was simply making things up, or if they were spreading falsehoods. The WNA site is consistently pointed to as a global source of truth by the WNU and by the IAEA.

Could you enlighten me as to who would be a more reliable source on nuclear technology?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_University

http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/what-we-do/worl...

https://www.iaea.org/services/technical-cooperation-programm...

Would an organization evidently so deeply ingrained with and tied to the UN and the UN's nuclear-specific arm, backed by numerous experts, really be in the business of misleading anyone? Would you disregard a pro-climate change website for its pro-climate change bias as well?

If you still don't believe me, feel free to drop your email and I can setup a time for you to meet several physicists or engineers in the NYC area for lunch, for an educational session free of charge.

What is "pro-climate" today if the main line of this recent out of "nothing" nuclear hype is: "It's either nuclear or coal", which is a lie painting people who don't want to have nuclear as some kind of idiots with a phobia.

> If you still don't believe me, feel free to drop your email and I can setup a time for you to meet several physicists or engineers in the NYC area for lunch, for an educational session free of charge.

Oh please...what are the chances that the person is even close to the NCY area...? I'm from Germany. You know...the country with no nuclear issues at all anymore...besides with the waste of it of course.

That says nothing about the truthiness of the page. Let's hypothetically assume that every word on the page is true. Would one not expect the "nuclear lobby" to link to it? Let's assume every word on the page is a lie, but favorable toward nuclear energy. Would one not expect...

There is nothing more sad...

I can think of two things:

1. A lack of second order thinking.

2. Dead puppies.

> That says nothing about the truthiness of the page

It says /a lot/ about the truthiness of it, actually

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house?

Assuming the alternative (which you conveniently left out) is the negative externalities of coal-fired power ending up on my doorstep? Yes, I'll take the nuke waste, thanks. Pull around on the left side of the house, please, so that you don't crush the sewer lines.

Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is.

Nothing in your comment contradicts that statement.

Seal it in a lead box, and I'll put it in my basement, sure. I've already got radon leaching out of the bedrock, and a big bunch of bananas in my kitchen. I think I'm already picking up more rads from that, not to mention all the chest X-rays I had to do on a regular basis for a few years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com