[chickenbig]

> Doses now tolerated are way below those of ancient dumps.

Do those old dumps generate high doses? Is there evidence of the high doses generated, and if so why isn't this on the wikipedia page? I'm not able to tell whether the dose from an old dump is higher than that from a fuel fabrication, reprocessing plant or nuclear power station.

> therefore some experts judge even low doses too dangerous

One wonders how they get to conferences. Also whether they think about the difference between timber framed and brick buildings, or the background radiation when deciding where to move to.

[natmaka]

> Do those old dumps generate high doses?

Nobody knows. A new exploration campaign is running (named 'Nodssum' https://www.myscience.org/news/2025/dechets_radioactifs_une_... ), targeting North-Atlantic zones.

> Is there evidence of the high doses generated, and if so why isn't this on the wikipedia page?

AFAIK it now is forbidden to dump highly dangerous waste in non-negligible amounts in the ocean not because there was some accident, but because experts judged that it may trigger one. An approach is to advocate the "let's do whatever please until something breaks", another one is to think about potential consequences THEN to decide.

> dose from an old dump is higher than that from a fuel fabrication, reprocessing plant or nuclear power station.

Those contexts are way more under human-control than an ocean floor.

> One wonders how they get to conferences.

This is a weird way to describe a real, ancient (and IMHO growing, since Fukushima) controversy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Cont...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis#Proposed_me...

[chickenbig]

> Nobody knows. A new exploration campaign is running

Would have thought a long-term study of these sites would have already been underway, given their apparent potential hazard. Surely Greenpeace would want such a study to back up their perspective (or does the position not require such evidence). Anyhow, disposing of the waste ten+ metres under the sea floor would have been much better.

> another one is to think about potential consequences THEN to decide

It is not there was an absence of research into this subject. For instance, the work done by Charles D. Hollister ... https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-28-mn-4440-... & https://www.jstor.org/stable/26057623 .

> This is a weird way to describe a real, ancient (and IMHO growing, since Fukushima) controversy.

You mistake my sense of humour; I was referring to the increased radiation dose from flying to/from conferences.

[natmaka]

> Would have thought a long-term study of these sites would have already been underway

As far as I know those studies are far from extensive and there is no permanent effort.

> given their apparent potential hazard

The good'ole "who is in charge, who pays?" is at play.

In many nations the nuclear industry just doesn't care (they dumped their waste, and good bye!) or disappeared after a phase-out.

A fair part of those who can pay those studies prefer to pursue their own endeavors (why would they have to work in order to cope with other's boo-boos?), for example the lack of resources available for oceanographers' core missions is well-known.

> Surely Greenpeace

AFAIK obtaining and maintaining a boat isn't easy for them. Doing so for some bathyscaphe (or similar equipment) and all the associated infrastructure and expertise for what nowadays is a mission (showing the bad effects of civilian nuclear) which is vanishing just as its mere subject is, while others (pollution, overfishing...) are more and more difficult, seems 'ambitious' without any very generous dedicated donation (are you interested in giving?).

> does the position not require such evidence

As already stated experts decided nearly 60 years ago to quit dumping waste in the ocean floor (London Convention), this seems sufficient to me.

> disposing of the waste ten+ metres under the sea floor would have been much better.

Maybe, maybe not. It would have been way more expensive.

> work done by Charles D. Hollister

IMHO the nuclear folks liked to be able to dump waste from a barge. Asking them to dig the seabed...

> You mistake my sense of humour;

Indeed, sorry.

> I was referring to the increased radiation dose from flying to/from conferences.

The point is: anyone decides upon hoping in any jetliner, or abstaining from doing so. A nuclear reactor can trigger a major accident which lets no such choice in a huge area, and for quite a while.

If someone lacerates the tattooed arm of someone else and says "hey, you already hurt yourself with this tattoo" I'm ready to bet that most, including any judge, will not support him.

[chickenbig]

> seems 'ambitious' without any very generous dedicated donation (are you interested in giving?).

There was plenty of anti-nuclear money floating about years ago; https://www.influencewatch.org/movement/opposition-to-nuclea... lists quite a few organisations interested in opposing nuclear power in the USA. As for the cost, surely a few weeks of boat/submersible time every few years would suffice.

> Maybe, maybe not. It would have been way more expensive.

I was coming from the radiation protection perspective; less liable to dose the denizens of the deep were they to swim next to the waste. Also in the mud is better from an immobilisation perspective.

> IMHO the nuclear folks liked to be able to dump waste from a barge. Asking them to dig the seabed...

Perhaps we are speaking cross-purposes; the digging would be for spent nuclear fuel (or the vitrified waste) where the vast majority of activity is. As for contaminated suits and the like, disposal on land is a good enough option.

> If someone lacerates the tattooed arm of someone else

It is more helpful to study what happens in industry as a whole. Industrial accidents do happen, after which investigations are performed. An intolerance of accidents isn't a viable approach, but reasonable steps must be taken to keep risk to workers low.

[natmaka]

> plenty of anti-nuclear money floating about years ago

They had much more efficient targets than old waste dumped in the ocean, especially after Tchernobyl and Fukushima!

>> It would have been way more expensive.

> I was coming from the radiation protection perspective

It seems indeed less risky from this perspective, however my point was about the total cost for the nuclear industry: dumping from barges is a breeze, digging the ocean floor is way less easy (and therefore cheap).

Many in the nuclear industry maintain the (quite old and until now vain) hope of obtaining a model of industrial breeder reactor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor ), and therefore are opposed to any waste-disposal option which makes waste-recovery more difficult.

> Industrial accidents do happen

AFAIK in every industrialized nation each and every sector of the industry HAS buy an adequately insurance (civil liability). Nuclear power is the sole exception: it is insured mainly at the taxpayer's expense and the reimbursement limit is ridiculously low. In France a study published by the official nuclear institute (IRSN) showed that a major accident on a single reactor may cost more than 400 billions euros (French ahead: https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-... ) , and the limit is about 700 million €. 3 orders of magnitude... The local Cour of Audit periodically yells about this. In the USA the limit is set at 16.1 billion USD ( https://environmentamerica.org/media-center/statement-federa... ).