[kennend3]

> Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools.

It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it? what is wrong with storage pools? they are safe and secure inside the power plant. Most plants are protected by armed guards. The plant near me has signs on the fence warning that "deadly force is authorized to protect the plant". Is your new issue that the "pools" are dangerous because ...?

> Yes, also not sure how that's relevant here? It's not like we built them... Background radiation is a thing, and life has adapted to it. A nuclear accident that ends up high enough on the International Nuclear Event Scale however is something you're not going to adapt to.

This makes little sense. First, who is taking about "background radiation"? Next, it is extremely relevant. your position is the long-term storage of the radioactive waste is a problem.

So, when earth created its own U235 + Moderator nuclear fission reactor, where is the waste from this? All over the earth? within 10CM of where it was created?

Earths "natural reactor" ran on the same principle as modern reactors.. Enrich U235 + water (US design) or unenriched U235 + "heavy water" (Canadian design).

Enrichment is needed because there is too little U235 left these days. As i said, if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases and it reached the point enrichment is no longer needed.

Both result in the fission of U235 and create radioactive byproducts which need to be stored.

It seems "mother nature" was capable of storing "radioactive waste" all on its own, yet we cant do this because ...?

"fukushima" and "Chernobyl".. Everyone loves these as the textbook case study in reactor design? what about the millions of hours of run time from all the other reactors? Darlington Nuclear won an award for 1,000 days without interruption. Solar going to run 24x7 for 1,000 days? Wind?

if we shutdown all reactors, what will you us to power whatever device you are currently using? Wind? Solar? you cant seriously propose these sources can supply enough power can you?

[loopback_device]

> Most plants are protected by armed guards. The plant near me has signs on the fence warning that "deadly force is authorized to protect the plant". Is your new issue that the "pools" are dangerous because ...?

The pools aren't dangerous by themselves – I was alluding to some nuclear power plants in Ukraine seeing quite heavy fighting [1]. That's the kind of situation where your armed guards are not present to protect it from nosey civilians.

[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/12/europe/ukraine-zaporizhzh...

[EricE]

Many hospitals have enough radioactive isotopes to create some really nasty dirty bombs - yet you never see the same level of discussion around physical security for them; perhaps because most people don't realize just how frequently radioactive isotopes are used for things other than nuclear power? The constant demonization of nuclear power has lead to this pathological loathing that is really shooting us all in the foot.

[loopback_device]

Hospitals don't usually cause a radioactive disaster if bombed into oblivion – and are also not valid military targets as per Geneva Conventions.

Radioactive isotopes used in medicine have significantly shorter half-lives than the isotopes found in fuel rods. I'm sure you can get something nasty done with them if you wanted to, and there are also enough incidents in that field, but it's not really comparable?

[hammyhavoc]

The Geneva Convention seems to have been thrown out of the window in recent conflicts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospita...

[loopback_device]

> It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it?

Was just answering your question – it wasn't me who brought up the transport castors. Quite to the contrary, I initially wrote "[...] concerns with this stuff are not necessarily about the short term storage [...]".

> This makes little sense. First, who is taking about "background radiation"?

There's only few locations known where natural reactors formed, they were only a few centimeters in size, and were active a billion years ago. They've long gone through the main part of their decay cycle. The remainder would be considered elevated background radiation. The reason we know they were or are there is because the products of decay are still where they formed, in the rock. Not scattered around the globe. Probably not safe to cuddle with regardless. Mother nature does not give a fuck, which is why it doesn't matter.

Further, these natural reactors are not known to go critical and obliterate a city. And even if they did, that might have been millions to billions of years ago, I'm sure we weren't there to be worried about it.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are good examples not necessarily because of their reactor design, but for the understanding of risks, their mitigation, and ultimately their catastrophic failure. Also because they're the few examples that exist, thankfully we do not have more of them.

The countless hours of safe operation of nuclear power plants also does not magically offset the danger in their failures, which does not have to be – but can be – extremely catastrophic. The fact that there's an award for running a hideously dangerous machine for 3 years without it becoming more dangerous than ideal does not make it sound any better.

And yes, photovoltaic (solar) runs perfectly fine for even a decade nonstop (see almost every house in Europe with solar on their roof) – in the case of the International Space Station – for 23 years, and counting. Bonus: a panel failure does not mean you get to die.

> Wind? Solar? you cant seriously propose these sources can supply enough power can you?

Uhm, yes, believe it or not, that stuff does work. Obviously not at the moment on a country level, because we've been busy burning coal everywhere instead of investing in energy sources that make sense decades ago, but that's where we need to go.