[chickenbig]

> There are dissenting opinions

Flat earthers exist too.

> In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal.

The link you gave did not list the effects of ocean disposal; elevated and measurable are not the same as significant or harmful unless you are a firm believer in LNT, although at the bottom of the ocean the background radiation dose from cosmic rays will be less.

[natmaka]

> File earthers

Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes.

The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.

> ocean disposal

AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK, this is a settled matter since at least 1972 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), therefore a bunch of assessments of the current situation for stuff dangerous for at least hundred years doesn't seem pertinent to me.

[chickenbig]

> Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes.

The principle is that we don't seek unanimity before proceeding with something.

> this is a settled matter since at least 1972

Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens (e.g. reprocessing plant water releases, power station tritiated water releases).

An international convention does not settle the science behind ocean disposal. The lack of supporters perhaps reflects the difficulty in carrying out such research, and the problems of trying to change international agreements.

[natmaka]

> we don't seek unanimity before proceeding with something.

> this is a settled matter since at least 1972

This is an opinion. My (dissenting) one is that the more someone is or could be impacted, the more we have to take his/her opinion into account.

> Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens

It doesn't imply that it is an adequate way to dispose of it.

> An international convention does not settle the science behind ocean disposal

"The main objective of the London Convention is to prevent indiscriminate disposal at sea of wastes that could be liable for creating hazards to human health; harming living resources and marine life; damaging amenities; or interfering with other legitimate uses of the sea." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... )

> The lack of supporters perhaps reflects the difficulty in carrying out such research, and the problems of trying to change international agreements.

Nuclear-waste long-term repositories projects are very expensive and difficult (to the point of many attempts failing flat) everywhere, therefore attempting to convince that ocean-dumping is OK would be useful.

[chickenbig]

> > > AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK

> > Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens

> It doesn't imply that it is an adequate way to dispose of it.

My point is that ocean disposal of radioactive material still happens, and experts are OK with this legal activity happening.

> the more someone is or could be impacted, the more we have to take his/her opinion into account

How do we take into account the unborn generations? Or the unemployed created by high energy prices?

[natmaka]

> ocean disposal of radioactive material still happens, and experts are OK

As far as I know ''certain Annex I materials dumping may be permissible if present only as "trace contaminants" or "rapidly rendered harmless"'' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), that is to say we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... ).

> take into account the unborn generations?

This is by definition impossible. We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations.

> Or the unemployed created by high energy prices?

It could be an argument in presence of a consensus promoting a single way to establish the total cost of a given type of energy source. There isn't, and it doesn't come as a surprise as some unpredictable event (nuclear major accident, nuclear waste wandering in some populated area...) may hugely raise the total cost.

Moreover the total production cost (LCOE) of renewables is already way (and more and more) below nuclear's, and there is no consensual way to assess the cost of firming those sources (cancelling the effects of 'intermittency' on production). Add the general movement towards decentralization...

Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor.

[chickenbig]

> we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era

Mass of material dumped is not the same as radioactivity or potential harm caused. It looks as if "de minimis" is the key phrase in the convention, in Annex 1.3 . However the IAEA defines "de minimis" in terms of effective dose to people (10 microSieverts/year) per [1] page 14. So point still stands, some level of radioactivity being discharged to the sea is deemed acceptable by experts. If it can be shown that radioactive materials will leach out of the containers very slowly, can this "de minimis" still be met.

> We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations.

So we should be able to vote on it?

> Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor.

Intermittent generators also suffer from cannibalisation (duck curve and all of that), hence the need for subsidies and/or guaranteed prices.

[1] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_244_web.pd...