[helpfulfrond]

Trusting startups to dispose of it properly if they go bankrupt seems like an absolute disaster waiting to happen. Netflix has/had an interesting series "radioactive emergency" based on real events that seems to be a fairly plausible outcome. The "Goiânia accident in Brazil occurred on September 13, 1987".

[EA-3167]

The US is significantly more developed and less locally corrupt than Brazil, never mind Brazil in the 1980s.

[helpfulfrond]

I still don't trust failing startups to handle radioactive waste properly.

[EA-3167]

Trust isn’t a factor, regulations and DOE control are. You also seem to be really overestimating the amount of fissile material any one facility will have at any given time.

[croes]

> regulations and DOE control are

That’s still trust. DOGE wasn’t helpful keeping trust in the capabilities of government agencies to enforce regulations

[EA-3167]

DOGE was a joke, the DOE is not and has a proven track record of controlling nuclear material in far more challenging scenarios than some startups with enough diluted PU for a reactor. Those risks are frankly trivial compared to the ones related to pollution and climate change people are willing to endure because it doesn't tickle their monkey brain with the "nuclear" word.

[bigbadfeline]

> DOE is not and has a proven track record of controlling nuclear material in far more challenging scenarios than some startups with enough diluted PU for a reactor.

Really? In the case of the Apollo affair, also known as NUMEC affair, the DOE lost enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs. NUMEC wasn't a big company.

Your statement is backwards. The larger the organization using the material is, the easier it is to control its use. Multiple cases of "some startups" are the opposite of that and a lot harder to control.

> enough diluted PU for a reactor

Diluted PU is chemically separable, no need for fancy centrifuges, "some startup" can easily extract weapons grade material and it doesn't take much to cause irreparable harm to the US.

> Those risks are frankly trivial compared to the ones related to pollution and climate change people are willing to endure because it doesn't tickle their monkey brain with the "nuclear" word.

A rogue nuke can do a lot more damage than pollution, especially in the current political climate. You severely underestimate the difficulties of safeguarding nuclear materials too. Pollution and climate change are several orders of magnitude less risky than willy-nilly distribution of plutonium.

And of course, "monkey brain" is a cheap manipulation attempt.

[PearlRiver]

Practically every time a corporation ends up polluting the environment the government ends up paying for it.

[helpfulfrond]

Which seems like a good reason not to hand out a bunch of nuclear material...